Since this is a forum for healthy discussions, here are my two cents on Prasanth's views :
1) A complete ban on tourism does not necessarily enable animals to live in peace. Approx. 950,000 people visit the Kruger National Park (South Africa) every year and yet it remains one of the most developed and accessible ecotourism destinations in the world. The White Rhinos of KNG have bounced back from the near-extinction situation of 1980s. Although the tourists may not have contributed directly to the Park's conservation efforts, there are not many pristine, untouched wilderness areas in the world that are as well preserved and yet also as accessible as the Kruger National Park. I agree it is truly unfair to compare Kruger NP with any NPs of India. However, a ban is not the ONLY solution. A clear roadmap & effective implementation of conservation initiatives are the need of the hour. If these can happen in India or not is a an entirely different issue altogether.
2) Employment of local / tribal population : Your views are contradictory. You propose a ban on tourism and at the same time, call for providing employment to the local populace. If there is no tourism, no visitors, no resorts, no safaris, where would the employment be generated from ? Mining ?
3) Wildlife Protection Tax : India has one of the highest areas of taxation already. You propose a Wildlife tax and yet suggest depriving taxpayers from entering the very wilderness for which taxes might have been paid ?
4) Special permission : Truly valid point indeed. However, it might breed corruption & protected areas are the last places on earth to let corruption sow it's seeds.
I hope my views do not seem offensive to Prasanth and look forward to the Supreme Court's judgement today.
Vijay
Bookmarks