Finally, here's an article supporting the ban from what I shall call as a "wildlife firster". The author, Jay Mazumdar, has a stellar reputation. However, I feel that this article completely ignores various important points to support tourism.
- Will the local people - mostly poor tribals - be hurt economically? They may certainly not make the money the resorts make (have you seen the effing JLR rates of late???), but do they get nothing? What will be the adverse impact of this? The article completely ignores it.
- The author suggests that the core be restricted to hardcore nature lovers. "With only a hard bed, a clean toilet and basic food on offer, the core will only attract those who really care for the forests and the picnic crowd will automatically move their party to the buffer." What about kids? If they don't experience our wildlife in its magnificence, how are they going to get interested and invested in conserving it?? What about the elderly? This is green elitism at its worst.
The points about polluting and explosion of resorts on the outskirts of forests make sense. They should be tackled effectively through laws, regulations, and enforcement. Unfortunately, a strong current of "Only the green elite, of whom I'm a member, should experience our forests" runs through the article, and ends up detracting from the arguments. The green elitism is compounded by the fact that *nothing* is mentioned about how important it is to get people from economically weaker sections to also enjoy our wildlife, and thereby get vested in protecting and conserving it. I'm disappointed.