This is with regard to Egil's comment ("It is the precise reason why India might want to restrict tiger tourism (and rightly so if situations like these are common place!):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7109878.ece)
The move to ban tiger tourism, if carried out, would sound the death knell for tigers in India. The tourism zones in any national park in India comprise only about 10-20% of the entire park. There is a vast area called the 'core area' where no one is allowed. This is an area that even forest officials do not visit, and is, therefore, a haven for timber smugglers and poachers. Instead of shutting down tourism zones, they should open up the core areas for tourism. Only then will the threat of poachers and the nexus between corrupt forest officials and poachers be cut down. They should be asking themselves - why did tiger numbers come down since the last century? It certainly wasn't because of tourists. It was because of hunting, and habitat loss, and poisoning of carcasses by villagers, and poaching that tiger numbers dwindled, not because of an increase in tourists flocking to see tigers! I want to ask Egil and his ilk: Is it alright to go in vehicles and photograph animals and birds? Is it alright to go on foot and photograph them? Do these activities put less stress on these creatures? Is it alright to bait animals and birds to take their images as they swoop down? The debate can go on endlessly. I am not happy at all to be dictated to as to how photographers should and should "NOT behave". Just because "in Holland and elsewhere, there's been a lot of debate about things like this" does not mean that such debates are sacrosanct and all other countries have to follow.
It is this warped thinking that has put tigers at risk!