John Varty & Tiger Canyon

[Pckts]

I agree with most @gaute says, especially towards Varty,
although, I believe the Naturalists actually provide interest and tourism increases because of the images they post on huge social networks like FB,
When looking at Kahna, Ranth, Kaziranga, Corbett etc., they all do so well with tourism. But its also why areas where tigers are not as likely to be seen don't do as well.

"This week, India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority announced that it plans to phase out tourism in its 37 tiger reserves. Here we ask two experts whether the government was right to take such a drastic step to arrest the decline of this endangered species, which now numbers just 1,350 in the whole of the subcontinent.Julian Matthews, chairman of Travel Operators for Tigers, says:Having spent many years visiting India’s forests and wildlife parks, I am amazed by the decision of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to cast tourism out of core tiger areas.These “over-loved” parks have the best habitats and the highest tiger densities. Corbett, the most visited park, still has the highest number of tigers in India (according to the NTCA’s 2008 census). Bandavgarh has the heaviest densities of tigers in its main tourism zone, with five breeding females and 14 cubs, and it receives 45,000 visitors a year.When sub-adult tigers leave the tourist zone to seek their own ranges in buffer zones, they get “lost” – poached or poisoned. These facts suggest that the best security for tigers exists in tourism zones, and tigers and their prey sense it.Related Articles

• Tiger conservation is disastrous, says BBC wildlife presenter Chris Packham25 May 2010
• Tourism and India's vanishing tigers01 May 2010
• More travel news26 Apr 2010
• Close encounters in the Ngorongoro Crater27 Apr 2010
• Whale watching in South Africa06 Feb 2010
• Komodo dragons: luxury cruise in Indonesia09 Mar 2010
  

Travel Operators for Tigers (TOFT) estimated that one Ranthambhore tigress generated some $130 million (£90m) in direct tourism revenue in the 10 years of her adult life. Take this away, and the forests will again have no economic value to those living nearby or to local politicians – and they will be sacrificed to farming, mining, industry or logging, as is happening in most unloved forests.Tourism makes forest personnel highly accountable and generates millions of dollars for conservation. Tiger tourism has the best anti-poaching units, operating vehicles with keen guides eight hours a day. On the borders of parks, tourism offers alternative livelihoods to hundreds, who might now resort to marginal farming, illegal logging, poaching and cattle grazing.I do not like much of what is happening in tiger tourism today. Too much is poorly planned; there must be better regulation and control – as we have urged.But let’s not kill the one industry that has the power to restore wildlife. Give the industry the best ground rules by which it can become a tool for conservation, not a soft cover-up for hiding the real reasons for the tiger’s demise – from poaching and the degradation of forests to lack of political and institutional will."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/safari...e-for.html

And this is from 2010, numbers have only risen since then.

But is this good or bad, is the real question?

A lot of the core tourism zones are also run by the Gov't and it is up to them on how much monitary donations they would like to make back to the forest. Taxes are paid, investors etc.
So while generating X amount, they may only pay back a smaller fraction to maintain it. Also, apparently the mass traffic by jeeps and tourists cause animals to change their natural migratory routes and lead them to travel to dangerous or human ran areas.
I doubt that if something generates as much money as tourism does, that they wouldn't monitor and make sure it has enough funding to continue to succeed. So I guess it comes down to man to determine if they want these places to succeed or not. I think they do, the recent translocation back to Panna and other tiger reserves seems like they are trying to bring tourism aka Tigers back to areas they once roamed.

My personal opinion is that they should allocate more $ to the Forest Department, and that goes for Africa and India. These guys fight a war with poachers and they are undermanned and outgunned. Lots of them patrol by Bicycle even, which offers its own dangers out side of fighting the poachers.

My personal opinion has always been that we need a UN type Gov't run Policy that would allocate a united protective service to any and all endangered species or habitats.
I think that some of these areas may generate a lot of revenue but they are in a not so wealthy country so a lot of their profit may go towards enriching the country and other countries like the US can have massive fish and game dep't and allocate a lot of $ to it, but if we had a united group the funds could be dispersed and made sure they went to the places they were intended.
Just a thought
 

  Reply