|
Tiger Watch Critique
by Dharmendra Khandal
- in response to the Central Task Force Report instituted by the
Prime Minister of India entitled 'Joining the Dots' (see www.
cseindia.org)
The critique
is written by Dharmedra Khandal a research biologist who, over
the past few years, has been the only person conducting any independent
research in Ranthambhore for Tiger Watch an organisation set up
by Mr. Fateh SIngh Rathore one of India's leading Tiger experts
who is also considered the father of Ranthambhore for his tireless
efforts of over 45 years trying to save the tiger in Ranthambhore.
In June 2004 his report highlighted the fact that 18 tigers were
missing. 12 months later the nation woke up to this reality along
with the shock that neighbouring Sariska had not tigers left.
Finally a Central Task Force was formed of which Ms Narain was
made Chairman. During this time a further seven tigers were reported
missing.
CRITIQUE
Dear Ms. Narain,
Although we have
never met I have had the opportunity of following the good work
done by CSE through your magazine and common friends. For someone
who has never seen a Tiger in the wild or spent much time in the
wilderness the only talent that you could have brought to the
Tiger Task Force as Chairman was your credibility and your past
track record of dealing with matters of public interest. It has
been something, which scores of people like me have always admired.
However after
reading through the report submitted by you to the Prime Minister
I find that both the credibility and the investigative skill of
your organization have been undermined. This is especially true
about your Ranthambhore analysis.
Your observations
on Ranthambhore hold the opinions of touts involved in the tourism
trade, corrupt officials and even that of a poacher in higher
esteem than the advise offered to you by people that have spent
over three decades trying to save the Tiger in Ranthambhore.
There are two
reasons why I believe Ranthambhore should have formed an important
part of your deliberations on the Tiger crisis.
Firstly, Ranthambhore
forms the image of the Tiger in the world by virtue of the fact
that it is estimated that nearly 80% or more of all images seen
worldwide of the wild Tiger have originated from Ranthambhore
in the past 20 years. Once the Tiger disappears from here it is
likely that the visual impact of the Tiger both in print and film
may reduce dramatically. It is a common belief on most issues
that once anything is out of sight it will be out of mind. The
impact of this for the Tiger anywhere would be profound.
Secondly, being
a dry deciduous forest (one of the only remaining such habitat
where the Tiger lives with Sariska no longer having Tiger) the
Tiger can be easily monitored without any complicated processes.
This is also true for poachers who want to kill a Tiger in Ranthambhore.
A simple preview of the past 15 years in Ranthambhore in relationship
to active wildlife crime prosecution and Tiger numbers would have
shown that it is directly proportional to each other. When there
has been poor prosecution as reflected by the reduced recording
of crime (due to lack of commitment by officials) as in the early
1990's there was a grave Tiger crisis. Then came a time of good
management from the late 1990's to early 2000 and the Tiger numbers
soared making Tiger sightings of cubs almost as good as the early
and mid 1980's. The past two years once again saw a lack of commitment
on the Park authorities to pursue wildlife crime (as seen in the
number of cases taken to court) and once again we have a Tiger
crisis. Unfortunately this does not reflect anywhere in your finds
of problems in Ranthambhore. On the contrary you have given a
clean chit to the park officials. If the Tiger cannot be saved
in an area where it can be easily monitored and tracked what are
the chances of it being saved in forests that are dense, plagued
with insurgency or are in an inhospitable terrain.
I have been involved
in Wildlife Research in Ranthambhore for the past 4 years and
am currently trying to run a project aimed at rehabilitating hunting
tribes and investigating poaching in the area. Based on what I
know about Ranthambhore and its problems I would like to share
with you my reasons for finding your report totally misrepresentative
of the problems the Tiger faces in Ranthambhore.
One of the first
things that happen in a crisis in India is for the system to try
and discredit those that have and can make a difference in solving
the crisis. This is exactly what the Park management succeeded
in doing in Ranthambhore. Mr. Fateh Singh Rathore is considered
one of the most respected Tiger experts not just in India but
around the world. Had it not been for his tireless efforts of
over 40 years there would have been no Ranthambhore as we know
it. His contribution is not only towards the protection of the
park but also towards the community conservation efforts that
exist around Ranthambhore. It was his report that highlighted
the Tiger crisis in 1991 and the current crisis on which he submitted
his report to the Chief Wildlife Warden in June 2004.
However not only
did you choose not to meet with him during your visit to Ranthambhore
but you allowed yourself to be manipulated by a handful of officers
who also happened to be the ones being investigated. They managed
to discredit his reputation by providing wrong information about
the land on which he resides. This they have done for nearly 30
years and he has won every legal battle on the status of his land
yet the system continues to create new cases and new legal hurdles
only to discredit his reputation. People like Fateh Singh are
a dying breed of conservationists who lived their entire lives
inside the parks that they managed despite the hardships of no
electricity, school or medical help for their families unlike
the officers of today who never spend even a few days inside their
park. You would have done well to learn from his knowledge of
Ranthambhore and its problems. Why you chose to ignore him only
you can answer?
As a result of
this you chose to ignore the fact that nearly 21 Tigers are missing
in Ranthambhore even though the State Task Force had admitted
to this grave reality. Forty years of direct field experience
of a person like Mr. Rathore did nothing for you to even want
to look any further and you have literally exonerated the top
park management from any wrong doing. Now another census is scheduled
in November. Anybody that visits regularly to Ranthambhore will
tell you that these 21 Tigers existed and no longer exist. You
can count as many times you like but it will not change the reality.
Not only did
you not seek out to find the truth by meeting concerned people
you let your self be manipulated by the very people that were
being accused. The one public meeting you had in Ranthambhore
was completely orchestrated by the park officials where they had
handpicked the people who met you having already told them what
to say. Even your limited field visit that you went on in Ranthambhore
was orchestrated to show you only what they wanted to show you
and not the reality. This is why in your response to the dissent
note to Valmik you wrote: -
"I even told you I was
extremely concerned at the level of anger I saw among people
in Ranthambhore - from the villagers to small hotel owners to
guards and others. Not only was it their complaint they had
got nothing from the park, but they were bitter that others
- prominent conservationists - were misusing their position
to circumvent rules for their own interests. This sense of injustice
has created a huge constituency against the park I strongly
believe is bad for conservation."
What people who
read this response will never know is that the most vociferous
proponent against the conservationists was Mr. Achan Miya a known
poacher who has killed many Tigers and who continues to have links
with poachers. That as the Chairman of this task force you could
have let a poacher be critical of another highly respected task
force member like Valmik in an open forum is in itself deplorable
and reflects strongly on the very credibility of the Task Force
itself. Matters are made worse when the task force chairman actually
uses this conversation in her open forum with this poacher as
an opinion-making source as reflected in your response to Valmik's
dissent letter.
You refer to
small hotel owners and one small hotel owner who seemed to have
influenced you was the owner of the hotel you were having the
meeting in. The only misconception here is that this hotel is
not small it is the biggest in Ranthambhore having over 60 rooms
while the so called big hotels some of who's names were mentioned
in your meeting include the Oberoi, Aman I Khas and Sherbagh.
All of them combined have less than 45 rooms of which 22 are tents
operational only for 6 months. So I am not sure who is really
the bad guy here.
In referring
to the vested interests quoted above you have actually been disrespectful
of the sentiment of hundreds of campaigners of wildlife protection.
These are people for whom being close to wildlife and wilderness
was of paramount importance and many of them did so at a time
when it wasn't even popular or lucrative as a livelihood. However
to do so they also had to make a living and therefore many chose
photography, filming, writing and other forms of businesses so
that they could be close to the wildlife they loved and also make
a living. This is exactly the kind of vested interest that we
need to nurture and not shun because without this no one will
ever fight for the cause of the Tiger. Putting things the way
you put it in your response to Valmik's dissent letter you seem
to infer that writing books, making films, owning land near a
park or for that matter having a hotel takes away the right from
a person to partake in wildlife conservation. What a defenseless
and ludicrous argument? In fact millions of people each year see
these films, read the books, stay in the hotels and witness the
beauty of our rich natural heritage and become ardent supporters
of its protection. Without the support of the numerous fans of
the Tiger it would have long disappeared and neither our politicians
or the bureaucrats would have taken notice.
In more places
than one you talk about people, their rights and the need to coexist.
In your response to the dissent note you wrote:-
"I find one key problem with
Tiger Conservation is that the constituency in favor of the
Tiger has become extremely exclusivist. Therefore, even as threats
to the Tiger have multiplied there is limited support for its
protection."
I will take
the liberty to presume you say this because you consider the hard
line approach taken by people like Valmik as being purely pro
Wildlife and not people. Once again this reflects how poorly researched
your findings are because had you investigated without a bias
you would have found that it is because of the inspiration of
people like Valmik and Fateh Singh Rathore that Ranthambhore has
a intensive and comprehensive people centered program unlike any
anywhere else around India's parks and this program has been going
on for over 15 years. At the same time many other conservationists
who agree with the views of Valimik and Fateh and live in and
around National Parks also continue to acknowledge the need for
coexistence of people and the Tiger and are trying to find ways
for this to happen. Because people like Fateh and Valmik have
actually spent years in the wilderness they know the problems
first hand and therefore when they say that our protected areas
have to be made inviolate they are not anti people they are just
being practical. Today the population density around the Ranthambhore
National Park stands at 248 people per sq km or one person for
every 70 X 70 meter area. This is growing at a staggering rate
of over 3% per annum or 6000 children are being added to the periphery
of the Ranthambhore National Park alone. Where is the question
of sustainable use? If we have to save parks like Ranthambhore
it has to be made inviolate of any forest produce extraction.
Yes local people will feel excluded initially which is why development
programs to help them become independent of the park and its natural
resources will have to be initiated. It is just like rights of
people on their lands getting nullified every time a project of
National Interest is initiated like a Higway, dam or any other
development project. The same should apply for our forests. Nothing
can be of a more pressing national interest than the protection
of whatever little forests that remain.
To explain this
view better let me sight the example of Delhi. For years everyone
new that there was unchecked pollution in Delhi. Left to the politicians
and bureaucrats nothing would have been done. In fact they were
dragging their feet on the CNG proposals. Finally the honorable
courts intervened and set a deadline. In terms of people's rights
(hundreds of factories, auto rickshaws, taxi drivers, truck and
bus drivers were affected adversely overnight or in a very short
time) these were rights that they had been exercising as a right
to live for decades just like the tribal rights inside the forest.
The only difference was that just like the tribals continue to
live lives oblivious of the fact that forests are diminishing
while their own numbers are increasing the people of Delhi had
also not evolved according to the times and were still using bad
fuels, poorly maintained cars and so on. Such a means to a livelihood
was not in the national interest and so the Honorable courts had
to intervene and it set a dead line for all commercial vehicles
to be converted to CNG along with other norms for industrial emissions.
Hundreds had to line up for CNG (many times for days and nights)
many businesses went under but still it had to be done. In the
public interest a stern decision had to be taken and while some
suffered in the short term eventually the millions that live in
Delhi enjoy a cleaner environment. At the same time many of those
that suffered initially have also got back to business.
No one knows
this case better than you. Yet when it comes to saving the last
bit of wilderness left you seem to have a softer approach.
This is exactly
what many of us question: Our dwindling forests have nearly reached
a point of no return if something drastic is not done immediately.
The action needed is to make our remaining national parks and
forests inviolate from forest produce extraction with strong provisions
in the Act for punishment and to make officers that don't do this
accountable. Yes some people will suffer the immediate repercussions
of this specially those that live near or inhabit these forests.
Set a deadline for their rehabilitation and follow it up with
fervor. As people realize that they can no longer graze their
cattle in the park (often non productive cattle) they will accept
the alternatives of keeping better cattle, as they realize that
they cannot get wood from the park they will be more likely to
grow their own wood or use alternate resources like biogas and
so on. Just like the CNG case where the honorable courts directive
was a strong deterrent to force change our parks need the same
kind of deterrent and deadline to stay protected.
Unfortunately
like so many reports before, your report has also tried to find
a solution to every problem. You have tried to keep everyone happy.
Most who know India will not find this surprising because when
9 commissions into the 1984 Sikh riots that killed 2733 people
did not yield much truth and only 8 convictions what are the chances
of an enquiry into a few missing Tigers yielding anything? Nil.
You quote many
good examples in your report of good work being done in other
parks but you saw no good in Ranthambhore despite the fact that
it has one of the most comprehensive community conservation projects
involving local communities unlike any in India. Obviously the
park management did not deem it important to show you all this
work and therefore you did not see any of it. Had you seen it
you would have heard more voices for conservation and not the
angry voices that you heard in your meeting held at the Ranthambhore
Regency Hotel.
Had you seen
any of the community conservation efforts initiated nearly 16
years ago by Fateh and Valmik this is what you would have found.
· An 80
bedded modern hospital dedicated entirely to the people living
around the park providing state of the art health care at highly
subsidized rates with provision for free treatment to the poorest
people. As part of its outreach program the hospital has been
instrumental in reducing the birth rate in the 40 villages where
the outreach program functions. Between 1991 and 2001 the census
shows a decline in population growth by 4%. No other park in India
can boast of this and no other park in India has a hospital like
this which was the only hospital found good enough to be kept
on stand by during President Clinton's visit and more recently
Prime Minister Manmohan Singhji's visit.
- A modern school comparable to
the best in India providing free scholarship to girls and subsidized
education to boys that live around the park with a free bus
service bringing children from nearly 20 kms away. One of the
girls recently admitted is the grand daughter of the person
that was tragically killed near Ranthambhore by a Tiger. This
is so that Tiger conservation can be inclusive of people and
not exclusive as said in your own words. 30% of all seats in
the school are reserved for rural children from the villages
around the park. The outreach program of the school works with
36 nature clubs (nearly 4000 children) living around the park
providing them with a mobile library, environment education
using street plays, films, debates, art and craft, nature camps,
visits into the park, garbage collection inside the park to
make it plastic free and free computer education to nearly 200
girls and boys appearing for their 10th Std. Exams studying
on Govt. schools all around the park. There is no other park
in India that has a school of this standard for the village
children that live around the Park.
- A comprehensive alternate energy
program that has helped build over 350 biogas plants 80% of
which are working. The fuel wood alone being saved as a direct
result of this is over 6 hundred thousand kilos every year.
The increased productivity of the land as a result of the increased
availability of manure and the increased productivity of cattle
due to the stall feeding are some of the other benefits. The
social benefits of better health of the women due to a smokeless
flame and time saved due to the reduced need to gather fuel
wood cannot be quantified. This program received the Green Oscar
in London in 2004.
- A tree planting program to encourage
wood for wood plantations has helped in the distribution of
over 500,000 seedling with this year alone accounting for over
65000 seedlings. A renummerative scheme that pays for each live
plant over a period of 3 years helps ensure better survival.
A drive around the park with someone to show you would have
helped you see innumerable grooves of little forests that have
come up all around the park over the year creating increased
biomass along the buffer which helps provide fuel wood, fodder
and timber.
- A breed improvement program using
artificial insemination in collaboration with BAIF has helped
inseminate over 400 cows and buffaloes in the past one and half
years. It does not just stop at this but goes a step further
to provide cattle feed, vaccination and dewormin tablets to
all the female calves born so that they can grow as health calves
being able to calve by the time they attain 36 months of age
reducing the time of 1st calving and therefore economic viability
for stall feeding to be successful something that is of paramount
importance if dependence on the park for grazing is to stop.
- A legal cell that has been fighting
wildlife related cases for the past 4 years recording a conviction
rate higher than any other national park in India. This has
been so effective as to record no forceful entry into the park
from the notorious village like Uliyana something that is unheard
of in the recent history of the park. This monsoon people from
Bheraunda were arrested from inside the core area following
which they attacked and injured a Tehsildar and some police
men. The legal cell has ensured that strict action was taken
and their bail not granted. A strong legal commitment has meant
that more people are realizing that a law to protect wildlife
exists and that it is enacted to punish anyone that violates
it.
- A women's cooperative that employs
nearly 500 families run by Dastakar started at the behest of
Valmik and funded initially by Ranthambhore Foundation started
by Valmik nearly 16 years ago.
Had you seen
any of this work you would have found that people like Valmik
and Fateh are not exclusivists (to use your own words) but vice
versa. It is just that you do not wish to see the other side of
their work.
It is true that
by virtue of the people living in close proximity of the park
crop raiding and cattle lifting by animals from the Park harm
them. For this they need to be compensated and they are already
being compensated for any cattle lifting. While many people have
begun to accept the reality of the need to conserve the park and
have accepted the programs being implemented to help reduce the
pressure on the park which also help improve their lives, there
remains a minority who continue to push their non productive cattle
inside the park, extract wood for commercial and own use, encroach
on forest land and turn to poaching and do not even wish to change.
This minority has to be checked because if they continue to break
the law with impunity other people will soon join them as the
natural resource of the park is like a treasure that beckons to
be taken whenever possible. It is this very issue that, I presume,
Valmik tries to address each time he tries to strengthen the arm
of enforcement for our treasured protected areas. As someone who
has seen Ranthambhore for nearly 30 years he can see the tragedy
that will unfold if the park boundary is not made inviolate.
One of the areas
that you have highlighted as a weakness in the management of Ranthambhore
is the age of the workers. You are not being serious when you
say that 45 is old? By those standards hundreds of those serving
in more critical services like the armed forces, police or any
other security agency would become incompetent. With the retirement
age being 58 - 60yrs it would mean that we are paying forest guard
salaries for nearly 13 to 15 years for nothing as he is already
being considered to be unfit for the job. On the contrary just
like any soldier in the Indian Army a forest guard is required
to be fighting fit until he retires and if this is not the case
then the recruitment policy for forest guards needs to be reviewed
so that better and more able people are recruited in the future.
Being 45 should be no reason to not be able to protect our national
parks. It's a lame excuse.
Because you came
to Ranthambhore with a preconceived bias you saw no evil in the
way the Park was managed, unlike your view about Sariska, instead
the only evil you found in Ranthambhore was in relation to tourism.
All your criticism on this is biased and without conviction. If
you go through your own conclusions on tourism in Ranthambhore
you will see why this is so.
Even before I
begin to write about this issue I would like you to consider the
fact that of all the places in Rajasthan that had Tigers only
a few years ago only Ranthambhore seems to have any Tigers left.
Yet none of the other places had any large pressure from tourism
infact some had no tourists. Yet despite the so-called pressure
of tourism Ranthamhore still has Tigers. Does it not tell a contradictory
tale?
This is what
you had to say about the tourism in Ranthambhore.
a) The hotels and resorts operate
without any building code of environmental standards. These
combine to put pressure on the already stressed ecology - using
water, disposing waste and garbage. In many cases the hotels
have been built on grazing lands of villagers, which further
puts stress on their livestock and in turn pressure on the resources
of the reserves.
Where in India
are hotels being built with any building code of environment?
Yet there are at least some hotels in Ranthambhore that are tented
and have less than 5% of their total land area with permanent
construction. They collect all the rain water that falls on their
land and 95% of their area is densely forested by themselves so
much so that you cannot even see the hotel from outside. They
operate only for 6 months and even the tents are taken down after
that therefore, for six months there is no use of water, no need
for waste disposal and no creation of garbage. Between them they
have just 22 tents. Jointly they help and contribute in the protection
of the adjoining hills that comprise the buffer area. These hills
are now the greenest when compared to any other such hill anywhere
in the buffer of the park. What other example of conservation
can be more sound. Yet in your meeting with local people in Ranthambhore
both these hotels featured in the big, bad and ugly hotels. The
fact that hotels are built on grazing lands is a figment of the
park authorities imagination. Ask them to provide an affidavit
in a court of law in this regard backed by evidence. The Wildlife
Protection Act provides enough teeth to ensure that they are evicted
if this is the case. If you have any clinching evidence in this
regard it should be put forward to the Supreme Court of India.
It is pointless to even mention this without the evidence because
then you are going against the very principals of natural justice
by holding a person guilty even before he has been tried.
b) The hotels and resorts do not contribute
to the local economy, effectively doing little to take the pressure
off the people's need to use the resources of the reserves.
Even if some employment is provided, in most cases the largest
benefit of revenues is exported out of the local environment.
It does little for conservation even though the business is
based on conservation.
Once again a
fact not corroborated with evidence. If you would have seen the
balance sheets of just the tented camps I mentioned above you
would have noticed that for every room they sell they contribute
nearly 8% as luxury tax, add to this Sales tax, service tax, bar
licence fees and income tax just these two hotels comprising 22
tents operating for 6 months would have contributed nearly 25lakhs
in taxes and fees alone. The figure would be much higher if all
the hotels were accounted for. The tourists that came and stayed
in Ranthambhbore contributed nearly 1.67 crores in entry fees
to the park in 2003-04. Nearly 10000 families (25% of the total
population around Ranthambhore) benefit directly from the employment
generated from the tourism. In the past ten years nearly 100 crores
have been spent in the creation of hotels employing thousands
of local people in the construction business. The area adjoining
the hotels near the park has the densest forest cover as compared
to any other area around the park. You have totally ignored the
benefits of local community conservation efforts made by local
NGO's to help local people all of which is partly as a direct
result of donations made by tourists that have visited Ranthambhore
and who want to see the Tiger safe. Nearly Ten Million Ruppes
are generated in this manner each year, which is almost equal
to all the revenue, collected at the park gate.
c) The problem is that this furthers
the sense of injustice and alienation of local people as they
see rich tourists entering areas they are not allowed into.
And they see rich hoteliers make money that they can't.
A vast majority
of the hotels are owned and run by Indian citizens who have a
right to livelihood as enshrined in the constitution anywhere
in India. Yet, nothing stops local people from running hotels
and in fact many are run and managed by local residents. The same
argument could be applied to the slums in urban areas surrounded
by opulent hotels and residential colonies. I am sure the slum
dwellers resent the rich people but does that mean that the rich
people become the villains and should forfeit their right to a
good life. The above argument literally means that it is a crime
for a rich person to come and build a hotel near any National
Park as it might create hostility among the local people. What
would happen if it was not a hotel but an industry which would
again be established by a rich person? Would it not create resentment?
And should this be the criteria to decide whether or not a business
be allowed to establish near a National Park. It is inferences
like the above that point to the credibility of the Task Force
as it appears as if the Chairman had an axe to grind against hotels
and business in general.
d) There is no control on the number
of hotels and resorts that are coming up around the reserves
and therefore if the growth exceeds the carrying capacity of
the reserve there is pressure to open out larger areas of the
reserve for tourism or there is more pressure on the existing
areas which in turn is detrimental to wild animals. This is
what is happening in Ranthambhore for instance.
Before we even
begin to ask about the carrying capacity of the park let me tell
you that there is no credible evidence based on any form of research
or documentation to suggest what the carrying capacity of the
park should be?
However even
if we try to analyze this on a rational basis this is what you
would find.
The area occupied
by hotels in the vicinity of the park is less than 1% of the total
periphery of the park. The rest of the park boundary is surrounded
by agricultural and panchayat lands. Yet this 1% is the best protected
and the greenest with much of the other land being degraded, overgrazed
and unprotected.
In your report
you state that Ranthambhore had 111365 visitors during 2004-05.
This means that approximately 412 people visited the park per
day in 9 months (i.e the tourist season) or 306 people per day
per if the whole year is considered. This number of tourists could
be accommodated in an average of 20 to 25 vehicles per day for
9 months or 15 vehicles per day per year. By this standard the
density of a tourist vehicle per square km inside Ranthambhore
would be approximately 1 vehicle for every 20 sq. kms and that
too for 6 hours (25%) of the day. By any international standards
Ranthambhore nowhere near its carrying capacity.
Even in terms
of revenues generated, one Tiger in 2004-05 earned the Park just
US$ 14844 (considering 25 Tigers exist in Ranthambhore currently)
as compared to one Lion in Amboseli Park in Africa (approx. the
same size as Ranthambhore) being worth US$200,000 as published
in a report more than 10 years ago by the International Union
for Conservation and Nature.
The potential
of tourism to generate revenue and employment in Ranthambhore
is more under exploited than over exploited. The only thing wrong
with tourism in Ranthambhore is the way it is managed by the authorities.
It is over regulated not because of the explicit desire to help
the Tiger but so that corruption can prevail and money can be
made by providing favors like providing free routes, extra Jeeps
(many in the name of an arbitrary VIP quota), filming permissions
and so on. Nearly as many govt. vehicles enter the park each year
as tourists entertaining local officials at tax payers expenses.
It is not the carrying capacity that is the problem it is the
management that is convoluted and corrupt.
Such poorly
managed tourism is beginning to impact on the reserve, say park
authorities. They explain they are finding that the reserve's
tigers are moving out. This, they explain, is because of the intensive
human pressure on the animal's habitat. The project tiger directorate
has also brought this issue to the attention of the government
of Rajasthan.
If park authorities
were aware that Tigers were being pushed out due to tourism and
that was the reason for their disappearance why did they not highlight
this in the first place? Instead they spent nearly a year saying
that the Tigers had climbed up onto the hills and so on. If human
pressure from tourism alone is reason for Tigers going out of
the park then why does the same not apply when we consider that
nearly 100,000 (an entire years quota of tourists) people enter
the park every day for a week unregulated and on foot inside the
core area during the Ganesh Mella which begins in a few days in
September.
Similarly if
tourism pressure of one vehicle for every 20 square kms (which
is well recorded in terms of names of visitors, passport numbers
and is restricted to a particular route for a particular time)
is pushing Tigers out why should the pressure of 248 people per
sq km (one person for every 70 sq meters) who reside outside the
park not be reason enough for the Tigers never to want to leave
the park which by all means is far quieter and safer and more
densely forested. On the contrary outside the park farmers are
bursting crackers and doing every thing in their power to prevent
wildlife from coming into their fields. Yet for some reason the
park authorities seem to support the idea and you agree that the
inside is more disturbed and therefore Tigers are leaving the
park. What a preposterous argument? The truth is that although
some Tigers will always leave a protected area it will be because
of natural pressure (Darwin's Theory of evolution) and other natural
causes the least of which would be tourism. These Tigers that
leave the park need to be monitored and protected something that
is currently not even done. Just to say tourism is pushing them
out is not good enough especially when there has been no research
to document this and the evidence on the face of it seems to be
logically in favor of Tigers wanting to stay inside rather than
outside.
Hotels within
a radius of 5 kms from the park boundary of a reserve must contribute
30% of their turnover to the reserves. This has to be a compulsory
cess on the hotel industry, for this industry is drawing advantages
out of investment made from public funds for the protection of
the reserves. The hotels can be allowed to claim 100% income tax
benefit for the same, as an incentive.
You have obviously
never done any business. This suggestion only goes to prove that
once again you seem to have an axe to grind against hoteliers
in general especially the so-called big ones as they are also
the ones that inhabit the 5km zone. Had you ever done business
you would know that it would be extremely rare for an average
business of any kind to make a profit of 30% of turnover leave
alone give it as a cess.
I am not able
to understand why this 500mt, 5 km and even 10km suggestion continues
to crop up for hotels in each committee report published until
now considering the fact that over 250 people per sq. km. already
inhabit the immediate vicinity of the park. Would you rather have
farmers running an illegal electric fence at night as is the case
in many areas around the park especially Khandar. If you had asked
we would have provided the information. In one village near Khandar
villagers (of the record) even admit to a Tiger having died by
electrocution and then buried. Similarly poisoning is also a common
practice and there is evidence that at least 2 Tigers have been
killed in this way and another 3 have been killed by being trapped.
All have happened at the behest of villagers who invited the local
poacher communities to kill the Tigers the number of leopards
is even higher.
I am sure none
of the park authorities told you that hotels were already providing
vehicles and manpower to the park for patrolling as and when requisitioned
by the park for free. They obviously did not tell you that an
offer for instituting an award for good forest guards every year
was made by the hotels. There are many hotels that would like
to help the park in any way they can as it is in their interest
to save the Tiger and many have said so in innumerable meetings
with the local authorities. Unfortunately with the park always
taking an antagonistic stance in relation to tourism and hotels
in general there is little chance for a park hotel partnership
from ever forming.
The problem in
Ranthambhore today is not tourism, or lack of community involvement
but in the failure of the Park management in protecting the Tiger
and its habitat from poachers. In fact community involvement to
some extent is already happening in Ranthambhore, the poor tourism
policies can also be easily corrected unfortunately good and accountable
park management is what is lacking and unless ways are found to
improve this the Tiger in Ranthambhore is doomed.
It is true that
tourism has some negative impact on the environment and needs
to be sensibly regulated. However for the moment this is far less
important in Ranthambhore than the threat of poaching, illegal
grazing and woodcutting, made worse by poor management.
While you have
gone into great length in trying to find out what is wrong with
the Tiger Parks of India and made many suggestion (many based
on a whim and some on facts) it is unlikely that anything will
ever happen because it is too complicated even to begin to understand
the issues you have raised leave alone implement them in the field.
It has become what one can call a "Kichadi". Had you
just concentrated on the way the designated National Parks were
managed viza viz Monitoring, antipoaching methods, legal interventions,
communication between outposts and park officers, use of vehicles
and manpower and many other basic management principals you would
have found your answer. The reality is that the very institutions
that are entrusted to protect our wildlife are failing us. The
best way to do this would be to hold them accountable. Unfortunately
you seem to think otherwise at least in Ranthambhore.
By absolving
the local Park management in Ranthambhore from any wrong doing
and diverting your attention to blaming it on tourism you helped
them find an alibi for their incompetence. In doing so you have
contributed to driving the last nail into the Tigers coffin.
Dharmendra Khandal
Field Biologist & Antipoaching Project Coordinator
Tiger Watch
Ranthambhore
Maa Farm
Sawai Madhopur
Rajasthan 322 001
top of page
|
