A fresh political and environmental protest is unfolding across Karnataka’s forest fringes, as farmers and local communities warn the state government against restarting safari operations in the tiger reserves of Bandipur and Nagarahole. They argue that reopening safaris would worsen the already severe problem of animal incursions into agricultural land, destroy crops, and increase human–wildlife conflicts that claim lives and livelihoods every year. Farmers from villages bordering the forests say they will launch widespread agitations if the government prioritises tourism revenue over their safety and survival. Their anger reflects the mounting frustration of rural residents who feel they are being ignored in decisions involving forest protection and tourism planning.
The controversy surfaced after authorities hinted at the possibility of reintroducing expanded safari routes and increasing visitor access to boost eco-tourism and generate revenue for wildlife conservation. Tourism interests have welcomed this proposal, claiming that safaris can support conservation funding and local employment. However, farmers fiercely oppose the idea, stating that the government first needs to address the damage caused by elephants, tigers, leopards, wild boars, and deer straying into landscapes where people cultivate crops or rear cattle. They insist that tourism benefits only a small section, while the costs are borne by rural communities whose farms and lives remain under constant threat.
Leaders from farmers’ organizations accused the Department of Forests of neglecting their demands for stronger mitigation mechanisms. They argue that authorities continually invest in tourism projects while delaying urgent interventions like elephant-proof trenches, solar fencing, relocation where necessary, and advanced early-warning systems. For many farmers, wildlife threats are not occasional incidents but daily battles—fending off animals at night, guarding fields, and suffering repeated losses to crops they have nurtured for months. They stress that until accountability mechanisms are strengthened and compensation becomes fast and fair, expanding tourism is an irresponsible move that sacrifices rural lives for the sake of recreation.
Several farmers also pointed out that cattle-killing incidents by tigers and leopards have increased in recent years, and compensation for livestock loss is often delayed or inadequate. They argue that the value of a cow, buffalo, or goat cannot be reduced to payout numbers that do not represent the full economic reality. For many families, livestock is not just a source of income but security against debts, illness, and unexpected household expenses. Losing an animal means losing a backup life plan. Farmers emphasize that until the government respects the true value of rural livelihoods, any decision concerning forest tourism will be treated as a violation of their rights.
Conflict of Conservation: Farmers Say Tourism Growth Comes at Their Cost
The core grievance of farmers near Bandipur and Nagarahole is that the state tends to treat tourism expansion and conservation as separate from local livelihoods. According to them, eco-tourism profits too often stay in the hands of private operators, urban policy makers, and forest officials, instead of trickling down as benefits for those who endure wildlife conflicts year-round. Villagers claim that promises of employment in safari services rarely materialize for locals, who are instead hired only for intermittent, low-pay work. They argue that real conservation must involve those who live closest to wildlife, not treat them as bystanders or obstacles.
Many residents feel they are being punished for living close to forests, although they have never encroached illegally on protected areas. They insist that their families have lived in these landscapes for generations, long before the concept of wildlife tourism existed. Yet, instead of empowering these communities with better safety infrastructure, the government expects them to tolerate displacement, crop loss, fear of animal attacks, and the death of cattle. Farmers say that the forest department values wild animals more than the people who grow food. They demand solutions that recognize their presence as legitimate, not as an inconvenience to tourism interests.
Farmers also question the claim that revenue from safaris directly benefits conservation. They point out that reserves like Bandipur and Nagarahole generate crores of rupees annually, yet elephant-proof trenches remain unfinished, and damaged solar fences remain unfixed for months. In many areas, trenches meant to keep elephants away have eroded into potholes that actually help animals cross into farms more easily. The gap between revenue potential and actual protection raises doubts among villagers about the state’s priorities. They believe that if tourism money truly strengthened wildlife management, mitigation structures would not be chronically broken or insufficient.
Local leaders emphasize that tourism cannot be justified as a conservation tool if it amplifies pressure on forests. More vehicles, more routes, and more tourists increase noise, pollute environments, and disturb animal movement patterns. When animals’ natural corridors are blocked by safari traffic or human presence, they often change routes and venture into agricultural lands instead. Farmers cite instances where elephants avoided tourist crowds and migrated toward villages to escape disturbance. In such cases, tourism becomes a catalyst for conflict rather than a supporter of conservation. They argue that this ecological reality is often ignored by tourism-driven policies.
Livelihoods, Safety, and Compensation: A Struggle Against Being Forgotten
Farmers near both reserves say they are helpless under growing threats. Crop damage by elephants, wild boar raids in paddy and sugarcane fields, and deer grazing on young saplings drain agricultural income. Compensation claims involve time-consuming paperwork, delayed assessment visits, and payout amounts that barely match market value. Villagers complain that government officials take weeks to inspect damaged farms, by which time evidence fades. Some farmers are forced to keep video proof of animals entering their land so that they can present it as evidence during compensation hearings. They resent having to document crises while scrambling to protect their crops.
Families who have lost loved ones to wildlife attacks describe an even deeper emotional trauma. They recount incidents where those who were guarding fields at night or walking on forest-adjacent roads were unexpectedly attacked by elephants or big cats. Compensation for loss of life or injury, they say, arrives late and fails to reflect the long-term suffering of affected families. Widows, single parents, and elderly dependents are often pushed into debt after the death of the main earning member. In such circumstances, the decision to reopen safaris appears insensitive, as it prioritizes tourism over supporting communities that experience tragedy firsthand.
Farmers argue that the only way tourism could be acceptable is if it brings direct benefits, safety guarantees, and meaningful participation in decision-making. They demand stronger fencing, more guard posts, instant compensation through digital systems, and accessible grievance windows staffed by local representatives who understand ground realities. They also propose that a portion of safari revenue must be mandatorily shared with local panchayats to fund mitigation projects and livelihood support. Farmers insist that the government must first solve existing problems before promoting wildlife destinations that deepen marginalization.
Women in these villages have played an important role in mobilizing resistance to safari revival. They are the ones who often stay home, protect kitchen gardens, and take cattle to graze. They feel unsafe letting children play outdoors, walking alone on roads near forest edges, or going to work on fields early in the morning. Women’s groups argue that tourism policies overlook their anxieties and domestic burdens. They demand stronger voice representation in all discussions concerning forest-adjacent communities. Their participation signifies that the protest is not just economic or political but a personal and emotional fight for basic dignity and security.
The Road Ahead: Government Caught Between Tourism and Threatened Communities
The state government’s challenge now lies in balancing eco-tourism revenue with the rights of people who live closest to forests. Forest officials acknowledge that the protests reflect real problems, but they also believe that regulated tourism raises awareness and generates funds for conservation. The question is whether the government can design a system where benefits do not flow only one way. Conservationists argue that community-inclusive tourism, where locals run homestays, transport, and guide services, may reduce resistance. However, farmers remain skeptical as past assurances did not translate into structural changes that protect their crops or lives.
Political observers note that the protest could influence regional voting behaviour. Forest-fringe villages in Mysuru, Kodagu, Chamarajanagar, and parts of Hassan play a significant role in electoral outcomes. If the government fails to act sensitively, it risks losing support in these key constituencies. Opposition parties may use the issue to portray the government as urban-centric and indifferent to rural suffering. Therefore, the government must approach the safari issue with caution, ensuring that conservation strategies do not undermine social justice.
Farmers have announced that they will intensify protests if the government proceeds without consulting them. They plan road blockades, sit-ins, and village-level mobilizations led by local unions and non-governmental groups. The protests may also draw participation from organizations representing rural women, youth, and cattle farmers. Farmers are determined to ensure that their voice carries equal weight to tourism lobbies. Their demand is not merely to delay safaris but to reform an outdated system that treats forest-adjacent communities as collateral damage.
Ultimately, this conflict is a reminder that conservation cannot succeed by excluding the people who share space with wildlife. For Bandipur and Nagarahole to remain models of ecological protection, the government must recognise that protecting forests also requires safeguarding the dignity and livelihoods of those who live alongside them. A balanced approach must begin with acknowledging farmers not as obstacles to tourism but as vital partners in wildlife coexistence. The government’s next steps will determine whether Karnataka chooses confrontation or collaboration, crisis or compassion, exclusion or empowerment. The voices rising from the forest borders demand not silence but justice rooted in shared survival.
Follow: Karnataka Government
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
