The Karnataka government has announced setting up of an expert panel to examine the tiger safari issue which was stopped some time ago after the forest minister Ishwar Khandre received complaints from local villagers about disturbance caused by lights, noise and crowds in Bandipur due to excessive safaris. The minister personally visited Bandipur following the surge in human–tiger conflict in the area which resulted in a series of attacks during October–November, leading to deaths of three persons and permanently disabling another.
Explaining the rationale behind the ban, the forest minister stated that villagers were extremely angry and complained that tigers were being pushed to the fringes due to safari-related issues and demanded an immediate halt. Since the ban, he said, no incident of human death has been reported, though a forest watcher was killed while he was out on patrol.
The surge in human–wildlife conflict has forced authorities to capture (often termed “rescue”) of at least 22 tigers, including cubs, in the Mysuru–Kodagu–Chamarajanagar landscape. Many cubs have since died. While the ban may have brought temporary relief to the public and administration, the scale of the safari operation raises serious questions about tiger management in Karnataka’s prime tiger landscapes, which are also major hubs of tiger tourism. There are allegations that NTCA guidelines were not followed during the captures. The fact that authorities had to resort to such a large number of rescues reflects the intensity of public outrage they faced on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, resort owners and safari organisers began lobbying the government to lift the ban, citing losses to business, livelihoods and employment linked to safaris. The issue came up in the State Board for Wildlife following which the Chief Minister directed the formation of the expert panel to carry out scientific studies, including assessment of carrying capacity.
This crisis also presents an opportunity to overhaul the ecotourism sector in the state in a manner that balances conservation imperatives and farmers’ apprehensions on one hand, and ecotourism-related trade and livelihoods on the other. A major issue the government must examine is whether carrying capacity limits are being implemented in letter and spirit, or they remain largely on paper. In Kabini alone, there are more than 15 large luxury resorts, not to speak of the dozens of cottages and homestays that have mushroomed across the region. The situation around Bandipur is similar. Not all these establishments operate legally and this requires a relook. This uncontrolled situation invites huge tourist footfall that has put tremendous pressure on the whole eco-sensitive zone surrounding the above two primary tiger destinations which often results in frequent and uncontrolled movement of vehicles inside the parks.
It is equally important to ascertain whether the Supreme Court’s orders on tiger tourism are being followed. Tourism was banned across India in 2012 and later permitted in up to 20 per cent of the non-core areas. Even in its recent judgement in the Great Indian Bustard case, the Supreme Court has upheld the primacy of conservation and mandated CSR spending for wildlife. Resort owners must be sensitised about these obligations. Tourism, undoubtedly, has a role but only under strict monitoring and control with tangible benefits flowing to local communities beyond employment alone.
Experience across India shows that wherever tiger tourism is poorly regulated, conflict levels jump, be it in Madhya Pradesh, Tadoba, Pench, Bandipur or Nagarahole. It must be noted that safaris are closed during the monsoon in all tiger reserves except in Karnataka. Earlier attempts to enforce similar management practices in the state were thwarted by the lobbying groups. It is hoped that the present government would take a balanced view, notwithstanding the tremendous pressure. Officials too should give evidence-based professional and objective opinions instead of painting a rosy picture.
Local community’s view is important as without their support, our forests, wildlife and biodiversity would be vulnerable. We should also encourage EDCs to manage the safaris as is being done successfully in other states. This would free the stressed forest staff for protection work. Most importantly, the management plans need to be implemented with full funding support to the department. While the panel may offer short-term measures due to obvious hurry to restart the safaris, it would only mean procrastination. Those who advocate that farmers live with the tiger conflict would do well not to forget the untold miseries both the humans and the tigers, including the forest staff, have experienced lately.