Leopard killed in-front of Police,SDM and DFO in Mandwadi

                                    This photo is captured from Patrika

Another incident of man animal conflict and leopard goes to rest for ever. While news of the tragic attack on a leopard by the villagers is not a concern for the forest officials, hiding the facts have become a priority. 

The incident is of Mandawadi of Rajpur sub-Division on Saturday.The barbaric act and the ruthlessness of the villagers was captured on the Camera being instigated by the SDM and other administration present at the time of the incident.

                                 Using  this Pictures without permission will come under copyright action

The Version of Forest as expected--It dived into the well and died of shock. Shame on all of us who are becoming inhuman and insensitive.

DFO Sendwa was present at the time of incident confirmed by DFO Barwani who was briefed about the incident after 5 hours after the death of the Leopard.

The fact is it died of stone pelting in the presence of Police, SDM and DFO as captured on TV crew of a local channel.The incident is of Khandwa Circle.

             Photo Of UDAI

The stories have been planted by the Forest department to save a face off gain. Will somebody question them on the Guidelines given by MOEF on Man Animal Leopard Conflict? Why were the guidelines not followed? Has the Madhya Pradesh wildlife wing ever considered briefing the lower staff and other on the Guidelines? Or Dr HS Pabla busy planning translocation instead of wildlife management and Conservation.

The Wildlife Wing of the MOEF has not parted with the details of Leopard since 2003 as not sufficed by Madhya Pradesh or the head office of the Wildlife Madhya Pradesh has data /Figures of casualties, deaths, births of Leopards as confirmed by them in writing to us.

We are anguished and sad.

Who is accountable for this tragedy? Why are leopards wandering from their habitat? A transparent inquiry with all facts to be shared with us is insisted along with the postmortem reports from the Chief Wildlife Warden of Madhya Pradesh. Suspending the lower staff will not suffice or close the case. The HOD should be made accountable.

In the last 5 years more than 125 Leopards have died, 85 through poachers, 11 man animal conflict 29 died due to natural deaths or illness.

 In 2004 the population was 1075 at present  in 2011 its estimated as 1073

Watch it for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e7hZB9wJfw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIYOamcd388&feature=channel_video_title

Champawat Tigress and the 10 worst man eater

Most large predatory animals can, and will, see humans as suitable prey, under the right circumstances; however, true “man eaters”, that is, individual animals that prefer human flesh over any other food, are very rare. This list is a selection of some of the worst cases of man eaters recorded in history.

10

The lions of Njombe

We start this list with the worst case of man-eating lions in History. It was not a single man eater, but an entire pride that preferred human flesh over any other kind of food. It happened in 1932, in Tanzania near the town of Njombe. A large pride of lions went into a particularly brutal killing spree. Legend has it that the lions were being controlled by the witch doctor of a local tribe, named Matamula Mangera, who sent them into rampage as revenge against his own people after being deposed of his post. The tribesmen were so terrified of the man-eating lions that they wouldn’t even dare speaking of them, believing that a simple mention would cause them to appear. They begged to the tribe chief to restore the witch doctor to his post, but he refused. The lions kept attacking and, eventually, took over 1,500 human lives (some say over 2000); the worst lion attack in History, and one of the worst cases of animal attacks ever recorded. Eventually, George Rushby, a famed hunter, decided to put an end to the attacks. He killed 15 lions, and the rest of the pride eventually abandoned the area, finally ending the nightmare. But, of course, the locals were convinced that the lions left only because the tribe’s chief finally agreed to restore Matamula Mangera to his old job.

9

Two Toed Tom

Two Toed Tom is a rather obscure man-eater, and today it is hard to know which parts of his story are real, and which ones are myth. This huge male American alligator was said to roam the swamps in the border of Alabama and Florida during the 20s. He had lost all but two of the toes in his left “hand”, and left very recognizable tracks on the mud, so he was nicknamed “Two Toed Tom” by the local people. He was said to have lost his toes in an iron trap.
He measured four and a half meters long, and people claimed he was no normal gator, but a demon sent from Hell to terrorize them. Tom made himself infamous by devouring scores of cows, mules and, of course, humans, particularly women (snatched as they washed clothes in the water). Due to his frequent attacks, many farmers tried to kill Tom, but bullets were said to have little effect on him and all attempts on his life failed. One farmer even tried to kill him using dynamite; the farmer had been chasing Tom for twenty years, unsuccessfully, so he decided to throw fifteen dynamite-filled buckets into the pond were Tom was supposed to live, and finally get rid of the problem once and for all.
The explosion killed everything in the pond, but not Tom. Moments after the explosion, the farmer and his son heard a horrible scream and splashing sounds coming from a nearby pond. They rushed to the place and saw Tom’s bright eyes for a moment before he disappeared under the surface. The screams were later explained when the half eaten remains of the farmer’s young daughter appeared in the shore. It is impossible to know whether this particular story was true or simply a folk tale, but everything seems to indicate that Two Toed Tom was real, and that he continued to roam the swamps of Florida for many years. People would constantly report seeing a huge male gator basking in lake shores, and hearing his roars every morning. They identified him as Tom by the two toed tracks he left in the sand and the mud. The most amazing part of the story is that, although he was most famous during the 20s, Tom was seemingly still alive during the 80s, when a huge gator lacking two of his toes was reported in the same swamps where he had roamed his entire life. Many hunts for the living legend were organized, but Two Toed Tom was never captured.

8

Kesagake

As I have mentioned in a previous list, the most dangerous wild animal in Japan is usually considered to be the Japanese Giant Hornet, which kills 40 people a year, on average. However, the largest, most powerful land predator in Japan is the Brown Bear, and, perhaps the most brutal bear attack in history took place in the village of Sankebetsu, Hokkaido, in 1915. At the time, Sankebetsu was a pioneer village, with very few people living in a largely wild area. The area was inhabited by brown bears, including a gigantic male known as Kesagake. Kesagake used to visit Sankebetsu to feed on harvested corn; having became a nuisance, he was shot by two villagers and fled to the mountains, injured. The villagers believed that, after being shot, the bear would learn to fear humans and stay away from the crops. They were wrong.
On December 9 of 1915, Kesagake showed up again. He entered the house of the Ota family, where the farmer’s wife was alone with a baby she was caring for. The bear attacked the baby, killing him, then went for the woman. She tried to defend herself by throwing firewood at the beast, but was eventually dragged to the forest by the bear. When people arrived to the, now empty, house, they found the floor and walls covered on blood. Thirty men went to the forest, determined to kill the bear and recover the unfortunate woman’s remains. They found Kesagake and shot him again, but failed to kill him. The animal fled and they found the woman’s partially eaten body buried under the snow, where the bear had stored it for later consumption.
The bear later returned to the Ota family’s farm, and armed guards were sent after him. But this left another village house unprotected, and Kesagake took advantage of this, attacking the Miyoke family’s home and mauling everyone inside. Although some of the people managed to escape, two children were killed and so was a pregnant woman, who, according to surviving witnesses, begged for her unborn baby’s life as the huge bear advanced. Of course, it was all in vain; Kesagake killed her, too. When the guards realized their mistake and returned to the Miyoke house, they found the bodies of the two children, the woman and her unborn fetus all laying in the blood covered floor. In only two days, Kesagake had killed six people. The villagers were terrified and most of the guards abandoned their posts out of fear.
A famed bear hunter was informed of the incidents, and he identified the bear as being Kesagake and informed that the bear had actually killed before the Sankebetsu attacks. At first he refused to participate in the hunt but eventually he joined the group and on December 14, he was the one to finally kill Kesagake. The bear was almost three meters tall and weighed 380 kgs. Human remains were found in his stomach. The horrible incidents didn’t end there; some of the people who had survived the attacks died of their wounds. One of the survivors drowned in a river. The region was soon abandoned by villagers and became a ghost town. Even today, the Sankebetsu incident remains the worst animal attack in the history of Japan, and one of the most brutal of recorded history.

7

The New Jersey Shark

These shark attacks took place in 1916, in a time where little was known about sharks of any kind, and some scientists even claimed that sharks were not dangerous at all. This is one of the very few cases of real “man eating sharks” known, with most shark attacks being isolated incidents. It all happened along the coast of New Jersey; the first victim was a young man named Charles Vansant who was attacked in very shallow water while swimming with a dog; several people, including his family, witnessed the attack, and a lifeguard rushed to rescue the young man. The shark was extremely tenacious and seemingly followed the lifeguard to the shore, disappearing shortly after. The shark’s teeth had severed Vansant’s femoral arteries and one of his legs had been stripped off its flesh; he bled to death before he could be taken to a hospital. Five days later, another man, Charles Bruder, was attacked by the same shark while swimming away from the shore. At first it was reported by a witness that a red canoe had capsized; in reality, the “red canoe” was a giant stain of Bruder’s blood. The shark had bitten off his legs. He was dragged back to the shore, where the sight of his mangled body seemingly “caused women to faint”, but it was too late; he was dead by the time he got to the beach.
Although sharks had been seen in the area during those few days, scientists who were informed of the attacks claimed that sharks were unlikely to be responsible, and said that the culprit had probably been a killer whale or a sea turtle! The next attacks took place not in the sea, but in a creek near the town of Matawan. Again, people reported seeing a shark in the creek, but they were ignored until, on July 12, an eleven year old boy was attacked while swimming and dragged underwater. Several townspeople rushed to the creek, and a man named Stanley Fisher dove into the water to find the boy’s remains, but he too was attacked by the shark and died of his wounds. The final victim was another young boy barely 30 minutes after the attack on Stanley Fisher. Although he was severely injured, he was the only victim to survive.
On July 14, a young female Great White Shark was captured in the Raritan Bay near the Matawan Creek. It is said that human remains were found in her stomach. But, although this shark was usually thought to be the man eater, not everyone is convinced. Today, scientists believe that, although the female Great White shark may have been responsible for the first two attacks, the Matawan creek attacks were probably the work of a Bull Shark. Unlike the Great White Shark, the Bull Shark can survive in fresh water, and is an extremely aggressive species, considered by some as even more dangerous than the Great White. Even so, this was the beginning of the Great White Shark’s terrible reputation as a man eater. Once confirmed that the Jersey attacks had been the work of a shark, there was media frenzy and a shark panic “unrivaled in American history”. The incidents inspired Peter Benchley’s most famous novel, Jaws, which would later be adapted into a movie by Steven Spielberg. Even today, lots of people who saw the movie are terrified of going into the water, and it all started in 1916.

6

The Bear of Mysore

I have already mentioned Sloth Bears in a previous list; however, although these animals maul many humans in India every year (one per week according to some), they rarely eat their victims. In fact, they rarely eat meat at all, and prefer to feed on termites and fruits, and are particularly fond of honey. However, there was a Sloth Bear that became infamous for being a man-killer.
There are some very strange legends about the origins of the Mysore Killer Bear; some say that the bear was a male and that he had originally abducted a girl as his mate. The girl was rescued by villagers and the bear went into a killing spree as revenge.
Another, more believable version says the bear was a female whose cubs had been killed by humans, and that she became a man-killer to avenge them. However, most experts today believe that the bear was probably injured by humans, and became abnormally aggressive as a result. The bear attacked three dozen people in the Indian state of Mysore. In typical Sloth Bear fashion, it would rip the victim’s face off with its claws and teeth, and those who survived were often left completely disfigured. 12 of the victims died, and three of them were devoured, something extremely unusual. The bear was eventually killed by Kenneth Anderson, a famed big game hunter, although the beast was very evasive and three hunts had to be arranged before the animal was finally brought down.

5

The Beast of Gevauden

One of the most infamous man-eaters, as well as the most mysterious of all. This beast (some claim there were actually two of them) terrorized the French province of Gevauden from 1764 to 1767. Although often claimed to have been an unusually large wolf, the truth is the Beast was never really identified. It was said to be larger than a wolf, with a reddish coloration and an unbearable smell, as well as teeth bigger than those of a normal wolf. The creature killed its first victim (a young girl) in June of 1764. This was the first of a series of very unusual attacks, where the beast would target humans, specifically, ignoring cattle and domestic animals. 210 humans were attacked; 113 victims died, and 98 were devoured. The attacks were so frequent and brutal that many believed the creature to be a demonic being sent by God as punishment; others thought it was a loup-garou, a werewolf.
Although the mainstream view is that the “Beast” was probably just a large wolf (or a couple of wolves, since some reports mention two beasts instead of one), the fact remains that the description of the creature doesn’t seem to fit a normal European wolf, which was abundant and well known to people at the time. Some experts believe that the Beast may have been a hyena, possibly escaped from a menagerie. Although often seen as cowardly scavengers, hyenas are actually very powerful predators and they often prey on humans in Africa and some parts of Asia. (A man eating hyena terrorized Malawi quite recently, forcing hundreds of people to leave their villages). Just like the beast of Gevauden, hyenas are noted for their formidable teeth and strong odor, and they are also bigger and more powerful than average wolves.
The beast managed to evade hunters and even the army, exhibiting the man eater’s legendary cunning, but it was eventually killed in 1767 by local hunter Jean Chastel. Legend has it that Chastel used a silver bullet to kill the creature, but this is probably a myth. Upon opening the creature’s stomach, Chastel found the remains of its last human victims, confirming the animal as the dreaded man-eater.

4

The Ghost and the Darkness

In 1898, the British started the construction of a railway bridge over the Tsavo river in Kenya. Over the next nine months, the unfortunate railway workers became the target of two man-eating lions (now known to have been brothers). These lions were huge, measuring over three meters long, and, as is usual among lions from the Tsavo region, they were maneless. At first, the two lions snatched the men from their tents, dragging them to the bush and devouring them at night. But soon they became so fearless, that they wouldn’t even drag their victims away and would start feeding on their flesh just a few yards from the tents. Their size, ferocity and cunning were so extraordinary that many natives thought that they were not actually lions, but rather demons, or perhaps the reincarnation of ancient local kings trying to repel the British invaders (the belief of dead kings being reborn as lions was once very common in Eastern Africa). The two man-eaters were nicknamed The Ghost and The Darkness, and workers were so afraid of them that they fled by the hundreds out of Tsavo. The railway construction was halted; no one wanted to be the next victim of the “devil lions”.
Eventually, the Chief Engineer in charge of the railway project, John Henry Patterson, decided that the only solution was to kill the man eaters. He was very close to being killed by the lions but, eventually, he managed to shoot the first one in December of 1989, and two weeks later, he managed to shot the second one. By this time, the lions had killed 140 people. Patterson also found the man-eaters’ lair; a cave near the Tsavo river bank, which contained the remains of many human victims, as well as pieces of clothes and ornaments. This cave still exists today and, although many bones have been exhumed, it is said that many still remain inside. Some experts have recently claimed that the lions only ate about 35 of their human victims. But this doesn’t mean they didn’t kill many others; like other man eaters, they were often said to kill even when not hungry. Today, the Tsavo man-eaters (or rather, their stuffed pelts) can be seen in the Field Museum of Chicago, although Kenyan authorities have expressed interest in building a museum completely dedicated to them, in which case the Ghost and the Darkness could return to Tsavo once again.

3

The Panar Leopard

The leopard is the smallest of the true “big cats”, but that doesn’t make it any less deadly than its bigger relatives. As a matter of fact, the leopard is perhaps our oldest predator; leopard bite marks have been found in the fossil bones of our hominid relatives, suggesting that the spotted cat was already dining on our ancestors over three million years ago. But although any adult leopard may see humans as suitable prey under the right circumstances, only a few of them become actual man-eaters, preferring human flesh over any other food. The deadliest man-eating leopard of all times was the Panar leopard. This male leopard lived in the Kumaon area of India during the early XX century. He was most active in the Panar province, where he killed over 400 people, being the second most prolific man eater in recorded history (after #2 in this list).
It seems that the leopard had been injured by a hunter, and rendered unable to hunt wild animals, so it turned to man-eating to survive. He was finally killed by famous hunter and conservationist, Jim Corbett, in 1910. Although the Panar leopard is the most infamous of all, there were others that were just as feared. The Kahani man-eater, for example, killed over 200 people, and the Rudraprayag man-eater, who stalked and killed pilgrims en route to a Hindu shrine, killed 125 people before he, too, was shot by Jim Corbett. Smaller, more agile and, some say, more cunning than lions or tigers, leopards were considered to be among the deadliest animals in the world by big game hunters. One of them claimed that “if the leopard was the size of a lion, it would be ten times more dangerous”.

2

The Champawat Tigress

During the late XIX century, a Nepalese region close to the Himalayas was terrorized by the most notorious and prolific man-eater of all times. Men, women and children were ambushed in the jungle by the dozens. The attacks were so frequent and so bloody that people started talking about demons, and even punishment from the gods. The responsible was a Bengal tigress who had been shot by a hunter. She had escaped, but the bullet had broken two of her fangs. In constant pain, and rendered unable to hunt her usual prey, the tigress had became adam khor, a man eater.
Soon, the victim count of the tigress reached 200. Hunters were sent to kill the beast, but she was too cunning and was seldom even seen by them. Eventually, the Nepalese government decided that the problema was big enough to send the National Army after the killer cat. Other than the case of the Gevauden beast (see #5), this was probably the only time in History when the army was deemed necessary to deal with a man eater. But they failed to capture the tigress. She was, however, forced to abandon her territory and she crossed the border to India, to the Champawat region where she continued her depredations. It is said that with every human she killed, she became bolder and more fearless, and eventually, she started attacking in broad daylight and prowling around villages. Men wouldn’t even dare leave their huts to work, for they could hear the roaring of the killer tigress in the forest, waiting for them. But most man eaters share the same fate, and eventually, one man decided to put the reign of the tigress to an end. This man was Jim Corbett, who would (ironically) become one of the first great advocates of tiger conservation.
Corbett would later tell of how he only found the tigress by following the macabre trail of blood and limbs from her latest victim; a teenaged girl. Corbett was a brave man, but even he was horrified at the gruesome sight.
Corbett shot the tigress in 1911. The local people were so relieved and grateful that they actually made Corbett a sadhu, a holy man. By that time, the tigress had killed 436 humans, and these were only the recorded victims, with probably many more who were never reported. She is still the most prolific individual man eater in History. Not only that; she killed more people than even the worst human serial killers (leaving genocide aside). Only one serial killer is said to rival the Champawat tigress; an infamous Hungarian countess named Erzebet Bathory… who was, funnily enough, known as the “Tigress of Csejte”.

1

Gustave

All the man-eaters in this list are gone; their killing sprees are just frightening memories by now. All of them… except for one. In the African, conflict-ridden country of Burundi lives the greatest man-eater of our times, a male Nile crocodile measuring six meters long and weighing around one ton. He is the largest Nile crocodile alive, as well as the largest individual predator in the entire African continent, and according to the natives and to Patrice Faye (a French naturalist who has spent years trying to capture the man-eater), he has killed over 300 people by now! Although still alive and active, the crocodile (nicknamed “Gustave” by Faye) has already become a legend. (There’s even a movie loosely based on his story, although it is quite bad).
Natives say he kills for fun, not just for food; that he kills several people in every attack, and then disappears for months, or even years, only to reappear later in another, different location to kill again. No one can predict when or where he will appear next. He is also said to have a monstrous appetite, and rumor has it that he killed and devoured an adult male hippopotamus (an extremely dangerous and powerful animal that most crocodiles avoid). Gustave’s body armor carries countless scars made by knives, spears and even firearms. A dark spot on the top of his head is the only remaining trace of a bullet wound that was supposed to put and end to his reign. But all hunters (and even, once, a group of armed soldiers) have failed to kill him.
Faye himself tried to capture Gustave by building a huge underwater trap, but, although the crocodile did show up, he never approached the cage. He just swam around it, “as if mocking his would-be captors”. Said to be over 60 years old, Gustave is probably too experienced and smart to be fooled, so it seems likely that he will continue with his depredations and perhaps, soon, claim the title of the most prolific man eater for himself. Things have changed a lot since the times of the Champawat tigress; Patrice Faye no longer wants to kill Gustave. He wants to protect him from human retaliation; by capturing Gustave alive and keeping him in a safe enclosure, Faye hopes to save human lives as well as the man eater himself, and perhaps use him as breeding stock to help the conservation of the Nile crocodile as well. The enclosure has already been built in the Ruzizi National Park of Burundi, waiting for the capture of the greatest man eater of our times.

Wildlife poacher Johru

Shared By Joydip Kundu

A Wildlife Trust of India report says:

A landmark case and first of a kind in India, the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Alwar, Rajasthan convicted noted wildlife poacher Johru and his associates, Tayyeb, Ramzan,Noora and Jiwan Das in a case related to Tiger Hunting in Sariska Tiger Reserve which happened in 2005 for 7 years imprisonment and Rs.50,000/-

According B.S.Nathawat-ACF Sariska Tiger reserve the hunting took place in Routkhola beat of Akbarpur range of Sariska Tiger reserve. The case was investigated by Range officer, Akbarpur.

Background: One of the leading poachers from Sariska Tiger Reserve area, Johru has a total of 14 wildlife cases pending against him in Sariska alone. Six of these cases concern tiger poaching.

Unlike Sansar Chand and Shabbir Hasan Qureshi who are essentially wildlife traders, Johru is a noted poacher involved in hunting protected wildlife as well as illegal trade. So far he has been convicted in two cases of leopard poaching with his accomplices Ramzan, Taiyab etc. on 13.01.2009 and 23.03.2009 respectively. He was sentenced to subsequent jail terms of
five years in each of these two cases.

Juhru had challenged his convictions before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench and applied for bail while his Revision Petition was pending adjudication but the High Court refused to grant him bail. He then filed a Petition in Supreme Court of India requesting for bail. ACF B.S.Nathawat was officer-in-charge of the case in Supreme Court.

On the basis of a misleading statement that ‘he had spent four and a
half years in jail out of a total sentence of five years handed out to
him’, he had succeeded in getting bail from Supreme Court on 06.09.2010. However, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier order of
grant of bail, when it was pointed out that Juhru had spent only about
one year and eight months in Jail.

On 18.10.2010, Govt Counsel Prashant Bhagwati had pointed out to the
SC that inspite of recalling of the bail order, authorities in Alwar jail continue to maintain that Juhru is out on bail.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court had summoned the Superintendent, Alwar Jail to appear in person before the Court regarding the matter.

On October 22,2010 Supreme Court during the hearing of this case
issued directions to Registrar of Supreme Court to enquire as to why
the order of recalling of bail of Johru was not communicated to the concerned authorities.

The Supreme Court had also directed authorities to put Johru under arrest,
according to BS Nathawat, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve. Later in December,2010 Johru was apprehended from his hideout by a joint team of Rajasthan Police and Forest staff led by the Addl. S.P of Alwar. Wildlife Trust of India assisted the Sariska Tiger Reserve authorities
in this case.It is likely that Johru and his associates will appeal to higher courts for relief. Wildlife Trust of India will watch and intervene in the higher Courts of law.

Kanha Pench Corridor under threat

Draft Guidelines for ecotourism in and around protected areas

GUIDELINES FOR
ECOTOURISM
IN AND AROUND PROTECTED AREAS 2nd June 2011 DRAFT/02 June 2011 2DRAFT/02 June 2011
3
GUIDELINES FOR ECOTOURISM IN AND AROUND PROTECTED AREAS PREAMBLE

Healthy natural ecosystems are critical to the ecological well-being of all living entities, and especially for the

economic security of people. Ecotourism has the potential to enhance wilderness protection and wildlife

conservation, while providing nature-compatible livelihoods and greater incomes for a large number of people

living around natural ecosystems. This can help to contribute directly to the protection of wildlife or forest

areas, while making the local community stakeholders and owners in the process.

This document lays out a detailed set of framework guidelines on the selection, planning,

development, implementation and monitoring of ecotourism in India. Recognising

however, that India’s wildlife landscapes are diverse, these guidelines are necessarily broad, with specific State

Ecotourism Strategies to be developed by the concerned State Governments, and Ecotourism Plans to be

developed by the concerned Authorities. Roles and responsibilities are enumerated for different stakeholders:

State Governments, Protected Area management, tourist facilities/tour operators, local communities, temple

boards and general public.

1. THE NEED FOR ECOTOURISM GUIDELINES
1.1 Ecotourism is defined as ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the
environment and improves the well-being of local people’1. Such tourism is lowimpact,
educational, and conserves the environment while directly benefiting the
economic development of local communities.
1.2 Most wilderness areas across India are fragile ecosystems that provide a whole host
of ecosystem services to local residents and people living downstream; and continue
to remain important tourist attractions. However, unplanned tourism in such
landscapes can destroy the very environment that attracts such tourism in the first
place. Hence, there is a need to move towards a model of tourism that is compatible
with these fragile landscapes.
1.3 Ecotourism, when practiced correctly, is an important economic and educational
activity. It has the scope to link to a wider constituency and build conservation
support while raising awareness about the worth and fragility of such ecosystems in
the public at large. It also promotes the non-consumptive use of wilderness areas, for
the benefit of local communities living around, and dependent on these fragile
landscapes.
1 This is the International Ecotourism Society definition of Ecotourism
DRAFT/02 June 2011
4
1.4 In recent years, the mushrooming of tourist facilities around protected areas has led
to the exploitation, disturbance and misuse of fragile ecosystems. It has also led to
misuse of the term ‘ecotourism’, often to the detriment of the ecosystem, and
towards further alienation of local people and communities.
1.5 These directives and guidelines for ecotourism are applicable to any Protected Areas,
whether rural or urban, including National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, community
reserves, conservation reserves, sacred groves, or pilgrimage spots located within
protected areas and forested areas.
1.6 Under Section 38 O 1 (c) of the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972, the National Tiger
Conservation Authority may lay down normative standards for tourism activities and
guidelines relating to tiger reserves.
1.7 Principles of Ecotourism
Those who implement and participate in ecotourism activities should practice the
following:
Adopt low-impact tourism that protects ecological integrity of
wilderness areas, secures wildlife values of the destination and its
surrounding areas
Highlight the heritage value of India’s wilderness and protected areas
Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect
Facilitate the sustainability of ecotourism enterprises and activities
Provide livelihood opportunities to local communities
Use indigenous, locally produced and ecologically sustainable
materials for tourism activities
2. GUIDELINES FOR ECOTOURISM
It is important to involve all stakeholders in implementing ecotourism guidelines. Synergy
and collaboration amongst the Central Government, State Governments, hospitality sector,
State Forest Departments, Protected Area managements, and local communities and civil
society institutions is vital for ensuring successful implementation of the guidelines.
2.1. State Governments
2.1.1. The State Government must develop a State-level Ecotourism Strategy – a
comprehensive plan to ensure, inter alia:
Wilderness conservation in ecologically sensitive landscapes
Local community participation and benefit-sharing
Sound environmental design and use of locally produced and sustainable
materials
Conservation education and training
Adequate monitoring and evaluation of the impact of ecotourism activities
Capacity building of local communities in planning, providing and managing
ecotourism facilities
DRAFT/02 June 2011
5
2.1.2. The State-level Ecotourism Strategy must be in tune with the framework of
guidelines provided here. Ecologically sensitive land use policies should be
prescribed for the landscape surrounding protected areas. Adequate provisions must
be made to ensure that ecotourism does not get relegated to purely high-end,
exclusive tourism, leaving out local communities. Relevant modifications in State
rules and regulations must be carried out in order to ensure adherence to these
standards by tourist developers and operators. All States should notify the Statelevel
Ecotourism Strategy by December 31, 2011, and put the same in the
public domain, in the local language also.
2.1.3. No new tourist facilities are to be set up on forest lands. This is in compliance with
the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the directives of the Honourable Supreme
Court.
2.1.4. The State Government must develop a system by which gate receipts from Protected
Areas should be collected by the Protected Area management, and not go as revenue
to the State Exchequer. This will ensure that resources generated from tourism can
be earmarked for protection, conservation and local livelihood development.
2.1.5. The State Forest Department should be the arbiter in case of any dispute regarding
the ecological advisability of any tourism plans, whether Protected Area Management,
private entity, temple board or community, as the welfare of wildlife and Protected
Areas/ biodiversity takes precedence over tourism.
2.1.6. The Chief Wildlife Warden of the State must ensure that each Protected Area
prepares an ecotourism plan, as part of the Management Plan/Annual Plan of
Operation/ Tiger Conservation Plan. A site-specific Ecotourism Plan for each
Protected Area must be prepared and approved by the State government by
December 31, 2011, and put in the public domain; in the local language also.
The Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of the State shall develop a monitoring
mechanism, estimate carrying capacity (model mechanism to calculate carrying
capacity, provided in Annexure II), delineate tourism zones, and decide the area
open to tourism on the basis of objective, scientific criteria.
2.1.7. A State Level Steering Committee should be constituted under the chairmanship
of the Chief Minister for quarterly review vis-à-vis the recommendations contained
in the State-level Ecotourism Strategy. The Chief Wildlife Warden of the State shall
be the Member Convener of the said committee. The State Government will decide
its composition and rules of procedure. Each State should constitute State Level
Steering Committees by December 31, 2011, and the names of its members should
be put in the public domain. The Committee should have representation from local
communities that live in and around Protected Areas, tribal welfare department,
Panchayati Raj Institution and Civil Society Institutions.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
6
2.1.8. As part of the State-level Ecotourism Strategy, the State government should levy a
“local conservation cess” as a percentage of turn-over2, on all privately-run
tourist facilities within 5 km of the boundary of a Protected Area. The rate of
cess should be determined by the State Government, and the monies thus
collected should be earmarked to fund Protected Area management,
conservation and local livelihood development, and not go to the State
Exchequer as discussed in 2.1.4 above. Each State Government should notify the
local conservation cess by December 31, 2011. The rationale for a local
conservation cess should be clearly explained to the public at large, including through
clear signage at local tourist facilities.
2.1.9. Financial assistance/ incentives should be provided for communities/individuals who
own revenue lands outside protected areas, to convert such lands to forest status.
The value of such lands for wildlife will be enhanced, even as it improves the income
of the landowner from ecotourism.
2.1.10. A Local Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as LAC) must be constituted
for each Protected Area by the State government. The LAC will have the following
mandate:
• To review the State Ecotourism Strategy with respect to the
Protected Area and make recommendations to the State government
• To ensure site specific restrictions on buildings and infrastructures in
private areas in close proximity to core/critical tiger habitat/National
Park/Sanctuary or buffer zone, keeping in mind the corridor value.
• To advise local and state government on issues relating to
development of ecological-tourism in non-forest areas of ecologicaltourism
zones etc.
• Regularly monitor all tourist facilities falling within 5 km of a
Protected Area vis-à-vis environmental clearance, area of coverage,
ownership, type of construction, number of employees etc, for
suggesting mitigation/retrofitting measures if needed.
• Regularly monitor activities of tour operators to ensure that they do
not cause disturbance to animals while taking visitors into the
Protected Area.
2 The Tiger Task Force Report in 2005 recommended that hotels within a radius of 5 km from the boundary
of a reserve must contribute 30 percent of their turnover to the reserve. Further, the hotels can be allowed to
claim 100 percent income tax benefit for the same, as incentive.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
7
2.1.11. Composition of LAC:
• District Collector (Chairman)
• PA Manager (Member Secretary)
• Local Territorial DFO
• Honorary Wildlife Warden (if present)
• Official of State Tourism Department
• Block Development Officer (1)
• Members of Local Panchayats (2)
• Wildlife scientist (1)
• Local conservationists (2)
• Representative from Civil Society Institution (1)
• In case of North Eastern States, the traditional village councils should be
recognized as equivalent to Panchayat Members, wherever such councils
exist.
• For Tiger Reserves, the Tiger Conservation Foundation should be the
overseeing authority and should include members that are not represented in
the Tiger Conservation Foundation.
• The Detailed Terms of Reference of individual Local Advisory Committee
will be determined at the State level.
2.2. Protected Area Management
2.2.1. Each Protected Area must develop its own Ecotourism Plan, as part of its Tiger
Conservation Plan, Management Plan, or Annual Plan of Operation, and should be
duly approved by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State, and the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (where relevant). The plan should be consistent with the
State Ecotourism Strategy and must be approved by the LAC and the State
Government. An ecotourism plan for each PA must be notified by December
31, 2011, and put in the public domain, in the local language also.
The plan should:
i) Identify (using GIS) and monitor the ecologically sensitive areas surrounding
PAs, in order to ensure the ecological integrity of corridor/buffer areas, and
prevent corridor pinching/destruction
ii) Assess carrying capacity of the Protected Area, at three levels: physical, real
and effective/permissible carrying capacity of visitors and vehicles (See
Annexure II)
iii) Set a ceiling level on number of visitors allowed to enter a Protected Area at
any given time, based on the carrying capacity of the habitat.
iv) Indicate the area open to tourism in the reserves to be designated as ‘ecotourism
zone’.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
8
v) Develop a participatory community-based tourism strategy, in collaboration
with local communities, to ensure long-term local-community benefit-sharing,
and promotion of activities run by local communities
vi) Develop codes and standards for privately-operated tourist facilities located
in the vicinity of core/critical wildlife habitats, eco-sensitive zones or buffer
areas, with a view to, inter alia, ensure benefit and income to local
communities.
vii) Develop monitoring mechanisms to assess impact of tourism activities
viii) Develop generic guidelines for environmentally acceptable and culturally
appropriate practices, and for all new constructions
ix) Do’s and Don’ts for visitors (see Annexure I)
2.2.2. In the case of human animal conflicts, compensation should be paid within a period
of 15 days apart from immediate payment of ex gratia. In case of North Eastern
States, the traditional village councils should be recognized and made responsible for
this purpose, wherever such councils exist.
2.2.3. All ecotourism activities should take place only in delineated ‘ecotourism zones’
delineated in the ecotourism plan.
2.2.4. Given that traditional tourism has been happening in national parks/sanctuaries;
many of which now form part of core/critical tiger habitat or critical wildlife habitat,
and also taking note of the need to implement the provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, the following norms maybe be adhered to in the context of
ecological-tourism activities, and included in the ecotourism plan of the Protected
Area. For critical wildlife habitats of national parks/sanctuaries and for core/critical
tiger habitats of tiger reserves;
a) Larger than 500 sq.km, 20% of such areas may be permitted for regulated
ecotourism access, subject to the condition that 30% of the surrounding buffer/fringe
area should be restored as a wildlife habitat in 5 years.
b) Smaller than 500 sq.km, 15% of such areas may be permitted for regulated
ecotourism access, subject to the condition that 20% of the surrounding buffer/fringe
area should be restored as a wildlife habitat in 5 years.
2.2.5. Any core area in a Tiger Reserve from which relocation has been carried out,
will not be used for tourism activities. Forest dwellers who have been relocated
will be given priority in terms of livelihood generation activities related to ecotourism
in the Protected Area from which they have been relocated. Protected Area
Management will make a special effort in this regard.
2.2.6. Tourism infrastructure must conform to environment-friendly, low-impact
architecture, including solar energy, waste recycling, rainwater harvesting, natural
cross-ventilation, reduced used of asbestos, controlled sewage disposal, and merging
with the surrounding habitat
DRAFT/02 June 2011
9
2.2.7. In a phased manner (within five years), permanent residential facilities located inside
of core-critical tiger habitat/critical wildlife habitat, which are being used for wildlife
tourism should be moved to revenue lands outside.
2.2.8. Protected Area authorities must ensure that all facilities within a 5 km radius of
core/critical wildlife habitats/PAs/reserves must adhere to all environmental
clearances, noise pollution norms, and are non-polluting, blending in with
surroundings. Severe penalties must be imposed for non-compliance.
2.2.9. There shall be a complete ban on burying, burning or otherwise disposing nonbiodegradable
or toxic waste in the tourism area.
2.2.10. In the case of number of visitors/vehicles exceeding carrying capacity, establish an
advance booking system to control tourist and vehicle numbers. Rules of booking
must be transparent, and vehicles must strictly maintain a distance of 15 m from one
another when stationary. Violators must be penalized, since congestion and
overcrowding in this manner causes undue disturbance to wild animals that are being
observed.
2.2.11. Protected Area authorities must delineate a minimum area for the visitor facility,
which should be in a site-specific manner.
2.2.12. Residential tourist facilities (number of beds) should be in conformity with the
carrying capacity of the PA.
2.2.13. In the case of Tiger Reserves, ecotourism should be under the oversight of the
respective Tiger Conservation Foundations for each tiger reserve, to enable Eco
Development Committees/ Village Forest Committees/ forest cooperatives to
strengthen the institutional framework through a Memorandum of Understanding.
2.3. Tourist facilities/ Tour operators
2.3.1. Tourism infrastructure must conform to environment-friendly, low-impact
architecture; renewables including solar energy, waste recycling, rainwater harvesting,
natural cross-ventilation, no use of asbestos, controlled sewage disposal, and merging
with the surrounding landscape.
2.3.2. All tourist facilities falling within 5 km of a protected area must be reviewed regularly
by the Local Advisory Committee vis-à-vis environmental clearance, area of coverage,
ownership, type of construction, number of employees, etc, for suggesting
mitigation/retrofitting measures if needed.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
10
2.3.3. All tourism facilities located within five kms. of a Protected Area must adhere to
noise pollution rules under ‘The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules’,
2000, and ‘The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules’, 2010
issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
2.3.4. All tourist facilities, old and new must aim to generate at least 50% of their total
energy and fuel requirements from alternate energy sources that may include wind,
solar and biogas.
2.3.5. There shall be a complete ban on burning or disposing non-biodegradable waste
within the Protected Area or in surrounding eco-sensitive zone or buffer area.
2.3.6. The use of wood as fuel shall be prohibited, except for campfires for which wood
must be procured from State Forest Department/Forest Development Corporation
depots.
2.3.7. In order to allow free passage to wildlife, development should be sensitive to the
conservation of flora and fauna, and the corridor value of the area.
2.3.8. Tourist facilities/tour operators must not cause disturbance to animals while taking
visitors on nature trails.
2.4. Temple/Pilgrimage Boards
2.4.1. Pilgrim sites located inside Protected Areas must be designated as sacred groves, with
strict building and expansion controls, in accordance with the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2.4.2. All transit camps and places of stay for such pilgrimage must be restricted to
nominated days in a year.
2.4.3. All rules that apply to tourism facilities including noise, building design, use of
alternate energy and free passage to wildlife will apply to such pilgrim facilities.
2.4.4. Temple boards must negotiate terms of revenue sharing with local communities, and
channel a minimum of five percent of gross revenue collected into development of
local communities through the Panchayat and Gram Sabha.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
11
2.5. Local Communities
2.5.1. The first benefit from ecotourism must go to the local people, and in the long-run,
capacity-building should be carried out to forge a sustainable partnership between
the forest department, tourism professionals and local communities
2.5.2. Soft loans may be provided for Community Credit Programme/Special Trust Funds/
Special Central Assistance/ Developmental Schemes of Tribal Department/Districtlevel
Integrated Developmental Programme/ Tiger Conservation Foundation, to
pre-identified local-community/beneficiaries for promoting ecotourism.
2.6. Public / Visitors
2.6.1. Public / Visitors must abide by the code of conduct, and ‘Do’s and Don’ts, as
developed by the Protected Area Management. Model “Do’s and Don’ts” are
detailed in Annexure I.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
12
ANNEXURE I
Model Do’s and Don’ts for Visitors
Appreciate the colours and sounds of nature
Treat the Protected Area/wilderness area with respect
Dress in colours that blend with the natural environment
Take pictures, but without disturbing wildlife
Observe the sanctity of holy sites, respect local customs
Keep a reasonable distance from wild animals, and do not provoke them
Dispose waste responsibly: carry back all non-biodegradable litter, and leave
campsites litter-free before departing
When in a vehicle, remember wild animals have right of way
Keep to the speed limit, don’t use the horn, and do not startle animals
Do not talk loudly or play loud music
Do not get out of the vehicle or approach wild animals
Do not approach animals closer than 15 m or disturb them while they are resting
Do not take away flora and fauna in the form of cuttings, seeds or roots.
Do not feed wild animals
Do not light fires, or smoke inside protected areas. Accidental forest fires cause
irreparable damage
Carrying of guns, fire arms, inflammable materials are strictly prohibited, as per the
provisions of the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972, and is punishable by law
------------------------
ANNEXURE II
ESTIMATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY
(Model Calculation, Example: Kanha Tiger Reserve)
(a) Physical Carrying Capacity (PCC): This is the “maximum number of visitors that
can physically fit into a defined space, over a particular time”. It is expressed as:
PCC = A X V/a X RF
Where, A = available area for public use
V/a = one visitor / M2
Rf = rotation factor (number of visits per day)
In order to measure the PCC to Kanha, the following criteria must be taken into
account:
Only vehicular movements on forest roads are permitted
The “standing area” is not relevant, but “closeness” between vehicles is important
There is a required distance of at least 500 m (1/2 km.) between 2 vehicles to avoid
dust (2 vehicles / km.)
At least 3 ½ hours are needed for a single park excursion
The PA is open to tourists for 9 months in a year and 9 hours per day
DRAFT/02 June 2011
13
Linear road lengths within the tourist zone are more relevant than area, and the total
lengths are:
Kanha 107.20 km.
Kisli 72.56 km.
Mukki 103 km.
Total 282.76 or 283 km.
Due to constant vehicular use, the entire road length of 283 km. is prone to
erosion, out of which around 90 km. is affected more
Rotation Factor (Rf) = Opening period
Average time of one visit
Physical Carrying Capacity (PCC) = 283 km. x 2 vehicles / km. x 2.6
= 1471.6 or 1472 visits / day
(b) Real Carrying Capacity (RCC): RCC is the maximum permissible number of visits
to a site, once the “reductive factors” (corrective) derived from the particular
characteristics of the site have been applied to the PCC. These “reductive factors”
(corrective) are based on biophysical, environmental, ecological, social and management
variables.
RCC = PCC – Cf1 – Cf2
---------------- Cfn,
Where Cf is a corrective factor expressed as a percentage. Thus, the formula for
calculating RCC is:
RCC = PCC x 100 – Cf1 x 100 – Cf2 x ……… 100 - Cfn
100 100
Corrective Factors are “site-specific”, and are expressed in percentage as below:
Cf = Ml x 100
Mt
Where: Cf = corrective factor
Ml = limiting magnitude of the variable
Mt = total magnitude of the variable
(i) Road erosion: Here the susceptibility of the site is taken into account.
DRAFT/02 June 2011
14
Total road length = 283 km. (Mt)
Medium erosion sink = 50 km. (weighting factor: 2)
High erosion risk = 40 km. (weighting factor: 3)
Ml = 50 x 2 + 40 x 3 = 100 + 120 = 220 km.
Mt = 283 km.
Cfe = 220 x 100 = 77.8 or 78%
283
(ii) Disturbance to Wildlife: Here, species that are prone to disturbance owing to visitation
are considered. The Central Indian barasingha, a highly endangered, endemic species
found only in Kanha has a courtship period of about 1 month in winter, during which it
is extremely sensitive to disturbance. Likewise, the peak courtship activity for spotted
deer lasts for two months before the onset of regular monsoon. As far as tigers are
concerned, newborns are seen between March and May and also during the rains; hence
an average value of two months in a year can be considered as the matter phase.
Corrector Factor (Cf) = limiting months / year x 100
12 months / year
Corrective Factor for barasingha
Cf w1 = 1 x 100 = 11.1%
9
Corrective Factor for spotted deer
Cf w2 = 2 x 100 = 22.2%
9
Corrective Factor for tiger
Cf w2 = 2 x 100 = 22.2%
9
Overall corrective factor for disturbance of wildlife in Kanha National Park = Cf w =
Cf1 + Cf2 + Cf3
= 11.1 + 22.2 + 22.2 = 55.5 or 55%
(iii) Temporary Closing of Roads: For maintenance or other managerial reasons, visitation to
certain roads may be temporary restricted within the Protected Area. The Corrective
Factor in this regard is calculated as:
Cft = limiting weeks / year x 100 total weeks / year
DRAFT/02 June 2011 15
In Kanha, an average value of 2 limiting weeks per year may be considered as the
“limiting weeks”, and thus the corrective factor works out to:
Cft = 2 weeks / year x 100 = 5.5%
36 weeks / year
Computation of RCC
RCC = 1472 x 100-78 x 100-55 x 100-5.5
100 100 100
= 1472 (0.22 x 0.45 x 0.95)
= 138.4 or 138 visits / day
(c) Effective Permissible Carrying Capacity (ECC): ECC is the maximum number of
visitors that a site can sustain, given the management capacity (MC) available. ECC is
obtained by multiplying the real carrying capacity (RCC) with the management capacity
(MC). MC is defined as the sum of conditions that PA administration requires if it is to
carry out its functions at the optimum level. Limitations in management like lack of staff
and infrastructure limit the RCC.
For Kanha, owing to the paucity of staff the MC is around 30%. Hence, ECC = 138 x
0.30 = 41.4 or 40 vehicles / day.
Thus, the Effective Permissible Carrying Capacity on any single day is only 40 vehicles,
which should be allowed entry as below:
(Forenoon) = 25 vehicles (inclusive of both entry points)
(Afternoon) = 15 vehicles (inclusive of both entry points)
During peak season (winter months), the staff strength may be increased (only 10%) by
deploying “special duty” personnel; this would enhance the ECC to 55 vehicles per day.
Further, increase in the number of vehicles would lead to deleterious effects on the
habitat.
*****

New guidelines for relocation of villages in tiger reserves

“The guidelines aim to ensure that all necessary relating to procedures for the full and effective implementation of relocation are follow through; and that in the process of conservation and protection of tigers, the right of forest dwellers are respected,”    Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said in a statement after issuing the draft guidelines here.

The purpose of the guidelines is to make easier the state Forest Departments to carry out village relocation from notified critical tiger habitats. The draft guidelines, however, specifically said that “relocation must be purely voluntary and must not in any manner use force”.

According to the 1972 Act, critical tiger habitat areas of national park and sanctuaries are required to be kept as “inviolate” for the purposes of tiger conservation, “without affecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers.” The draft guidelines are being placed on the Ministry website for a period of 30 days to seek inputs from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. Under the revised Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger (2008), the proposed package for relocation of villagers in the core tiger habitats has two options.

Payment of the entire package amount (Rs 10 lakh per family) to the family in case the family opts for it, without any rehabilitation by the Forest Department. In case the villagers, through the Gram Sabha do not agree to this, one of the important options is to provide two hectares of agricultural land per family.

In case revenue land is not available for this purpose, diversion of degraded forest land may be obtained after due clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,” it says.

“The guidelines aim to ensure that all necessary relating to procedures for the full and effective implementation of relocation are follow through; and that in the process of conservation and protection of tigers, the right of forest dwellers are respected,”    Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said in a statement after issuing the draft guidelines here.

The purpose of the guidelines is to make easier the state Forest Departments to carry out village relocation from notified critical tiger habitats. The draft guidelines, however, specifically said that “relocation must be purely voluntary and must not in any manner use force”.

According to the 1972 Act, critical tiger habitat areas of national park and sanctuaries are required to be kept as “inviolate” for the purposes of tiger conservation, “without affecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers.” The draft guidelines are being placed on the Ministry website for a period of 30 days to seek inputs from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. Under the revised Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger (2008), the proposed package for relocation of villagers in the core tiger habitats has two options. 

Payment of the entire package amount (Rs 10 lakh per family) to the family in case the family opts for it, without any rehabilitation by the Forest Department. In case the villagers, through the Gram Sabha do not agree to this, one of the important options is to provide two hectares of agricultural land per family.

In case revenue land is not available for this purpose, diversion of degraded forest land may be obtained after due clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,” it says.

Haathi Mere Saathi campaign.

Reaching out to the people, to improve conservation and welfare prospects of the elephant - India’s National Heritage Animal, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in partnership with the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) has launched the nationwide Haathi Mere Saathi campaign.

Addressing at the Elephant-8 Ministerial Meeting today in New Delhi, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests (I/C), Shri Jairam Ramesh said that Elephants are so ingrained in Indian culture and traditions, that sometimes, we tend to take the elephant for granted. He said, this public initiative is aimed at increasing awareness among people and developing not just friendship but also companionship between people and elephants. The Minister unveiled the Campaign mascot, logo and website (www.haathimeresaathi.org) on the occasion.

Shri Ramesh said, unlike the tiger, which faces threat of extinction, the elephant faces threats of attrition. The elephant numbers have not increased or decreased drastically, but there is increasing pressure on the elephant habitats and it is a serious concern that we will try and address by involving people in elephant conservation and welfare through this campaign, he added.

The Minister said that one of the recommendations of the Elephant Task Force last year was for India to take a lead in global elephant conservation. This has now become a reality at this E-8 Meet. “The delegates present here represent two-third of the world’s wild elephant population. Later in 2013 we will bring in all the 50 elephant range countries together to deliberate and actively cooperate for elephant conservation and welfare,” the Minister added.

Representing regions with all three species of elephants, the participants included policy makers, conservationists, scientists, historians, art and culture experts among others from India, Botswana, Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand. Discussions covered a wide range of issues categorised under three basic themes Science and Conservation, Management and Conservation, and Cultural and Ethical perspectives of conservation.

Recommended by the Elephant Task Force (ETF) constituted by the Ministry last year, the Campaign to ‘take Gajah (the elephant) to Prajah (the people)’ aims to spread awareness and encourage people’s participation in elephant conservation and welfare.

The Executive Director-WTI and a member of the ETF, Shri Vivek Menon said that Elephants have for ages been a significant icon in Indian culture and traditions and a flagship for Indian forests. However, today, threats to the pachyderms in the wild; and there are welfare concerns for captive elephants. The country’s National Heritage Animal needs its people and the idea behind the Campaign is to mobilise this support.

The Asian elephant is threatened by habitat degradation, conflicts and poaching for ivory. These threats are more intense in India which harbours more than 50% of the world’s Asian elephants, but also struggles to balance its aspirations for development, and people’s welfare, as it strives to secure its natural heritage.

The Additional Director General (Wildlife), Government of India, Shri Jagdish Kishwan said that India has about 25,000 elephants in the wild. Despite this seemingly large number, the elephant, particularly the tuskers, in India is as threatened as the tiger. There are just about 1200 tuskers left in the country. Moreover, elephants being large-bodied have much larger range and resource requirements; destruction of their habitat can have drastic effects on this species, and these cannot be addressed without the people’s participation.

For effective conservation and welfare measures, the Campaign is strategised to evoke companionship with the animal, highlighting the strong cultural, religious and social association of elephants as well as their ecological values.

The Campaign focuses on various target audience groups including locals near elephant habitats, youth, policy makers, among others. It envisions setting up of Gajah centres in elephant landscapes across the country to spread awareness on their plight and invoke people’s participation in addressing the threats to them. It also plans to build capacity of protection and law enforcement agencies at the ground level, and advocate for policies favouring the pachyderms. 

The Tiger Reserves in India

The 36 Tiger Reserves are listed state wise in the following table:

List of India's Tiger Reserves
State	Name of Reserve	Year	Area Sq. Km
Assam	Kaziranga	2006	859
Assam	Manas	1973-74	2840
Assam	Nameri	1999-2000	344
Arunachal Pradesh	Namdapha	1982-83	1985
Arunachal Pradesh	Pakhui	1999-2000	862
Andhra Pradesh	Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam	1982-83	3568
Bihar	Valmiki	1989-90	840
Chhattishgarh	Indravati	1982-83	2799
Jharkhand	Palamau	1973-74	1026
Karnataka	Bandipur	1973-74	866
Karnataka	Nagarhole (extension)	1999-2000	643
Karnataka	Bhadra	1998-99	492
Karnataka	Dandeli-Anashi	2007	875
Kerala	Periyar	1978-79	777
Madhya Pradesh	Bandhavgarh	1993-94	1162
Madhya Pradesh	Bori-Satpura	1999-2000	1486
Madhya Pradesh	Kanha	1973-74	1945
Madhya Pradesh	Panna	1994-95	542
Madhya Pradesh	Pench	1992-93	758
Madhya Pradesh	Ratapani	2008-09	674
Maharashtra	Melghat	1973-74	1677
Maharashtra	Pench	1992-93	257
Maharashtra	Tadoba-Andhari	1993-94	620
Maharashtra	Shahayadri	2008-09	569
Mizoram	Dampa	1994-95	500
Orissa	Simlipal	1973-74	2750
Orissa	Sunabeda	2008-09	856
Rajasthan	Ranthambhore	1973-74	1334
Rajasthan	Sariska	1978-79	866
Tamil Nadu	Kalakad-Mundathurai	1988-89	800
Uttar Pradesh	Dudhwa	1987-88	811
Uttar Pradesh	Katerniaghat (extension)	1999-2000	551
Uttar Pradesh	Pilibhit	2008-09	1089
Uttarakhand	Corbett	1973-74	1316
West Bengal	Buxa	1982-83	759
West Bengal	Sunderbans	1973-74	2585