MP backs tourism in tiger reserves

The state told the court that tourism does not exploit resources on which wildlife depends for survival and propagation,and can’t be kept in the same category as other human activities.

The government argued that states have allowed tourism in core areas by developing necessary safeguards to regulate tourism and minimise the adverse impact on the habitat. It claimed that reserves where tourism has been allowed for the past 40 years continue to support highest wildlife densities.

It also argued that buffer areas don’t get the same level of legal protection as core areas and will never be able to satisfy the visitors due to a lack of “high density of wild animals and pristine wilderness’’. Also,local communities are given the nistar rights over forests in buffer areas.

“The court’s decision is likely to have national and international implications on wildlife as well as people and businesses dependent on wildlife tourism,” the state’s affidavit said,requesting the court to hear all states and UTs before passing any order.

Those opposed to tourism told the court that allowing it will further the sense of injustice among local people who will think that while they are being driven out,the rich are being let in.