Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference

[Pckts]

"o dismiss dedicated rangers as poor bastards who knew they were at risk when they were attacked and killed by T-24. As that is what you, in my opinion, did, PC."

I take great offense to this statement @peter.
I have never nor will I ever dismiss any public servents death especially under such circumstances.

The first words from my statement state how "Sad" it is.
That comes first and foremost.

Now in regards to Ranth and Population compared to other reserves, I think we need Indian Citizens to explain the difference Between Ranth compared to Kahna, Tadoba, Corbett, Assam, Bandhavargh, Bandipur, Panna etc.
What is the public proximity compared to these reserves? How do they deal with tigers compared to Ranth, from what I read, Ranth is an extremely poor run facility that caters to VIP tourists and people go above and beyond to get glimpses of tigers. The whole issue of T24 brought that to life and their are numerous images and accounts providing proof of that.

Until we actually take a look at geographical areas and actually do in depth analytics on the people living there and how often they actually cross path's with tigers, we don't know how it works. Villagers have lived with Ustad for his entire life, he has only attacked forest Guards, this cannot be ignored.

So it sounds like where you and I disagree is the worth of Human life compared to animal life.
I take the stance that neither is greater, one shouldn't make way for the other, they need to coexist. I assume India is like any other country, the population is exploding and areas are running out of space, but does that mean that they must destroy forests, remove native creatures and molest the last of our natural world? (this goes for most parts of the world, not just India)
No it doesn't this world is massive, there is plenty of space, travel the world, you can see vast areas filled with nothing, go close to the coasts and you see homes all over. People want to live in the most comfortable situation possible, they don't care about what they destroy. Imagine humans giving back a little, sacrificing the best areas to live and moving a bit off the beaten path. Instead they take, take and take. I will never agree that a human beings well being is more important than an animals, we are all the same. We are made of the same things, our path is not more important than others. In fact, the entire world of animals have been able to coexist for millions of years, yet we cannot?
I refuse to believe that, we are to greedy as a species, we always want bigger and better, more, more, more.............

So yes, any loss of life is tragic, but no loss is less or more important. Its all sad, all of it.

We got a little off topic there, in regards to Ustad, I don't know what is the right move. I see both sides of the coin, you can make great points for either side and not be wrong. My personal opinion is shared by some and argued by others, which is what makes it such a highly debated issue.
 

  Reply