This is a very difficult area and includes a lot of hypocrisy.
There was a TV programme a few years ago. WWF had obtained land for a tiger reserve in India and told the local people that they were no longer able to grow crops on the land. Some time later, poachers killed a few tigers. WWF complained about this to the local people. "Why didn't you stop the poachers?" "Before you came, we could grow food for our families on the land. Now, the land doesn't benefit us. Why should we help you when you have deprived us of food?" Eventually, a compromise was reached and the local people were allowed to grow food on the boundaries of the reserve and also watched out for poachers and reported these to the WWF. A win-win situation.
I think we need a big reality check about the situation of tiger conservation in India. India has a very high population, which is increasing at about 1.38% a year. That's about 162,000 people a year. Many areas of India are already densely populated, so where are all the additional people going to live? In the UK, much of the native forests have been cut down and new development plans will also lead to the destruction of natural habitat. Wolves, brown bears, lynxes and various other species no longer exist in the UK, but India is trying to save tigers and other wildlife, despite many people living in poverty far worse than that experienced in the UK. It's a difficult balancing act, but I can't really expect that many Britons would like to live near wild animals that can, and do, kill people. Several years ago, I went to a talk about reintroducing wolves to the UK. There was support among the audience, but people on Rhum and other parts of the UK have voiced concern about wolves attacking children and livestock. Think of the impact of something like a tiger and I can understand why we may need to make compromises if we expect the Indian government to save tigers.
