Local Tribes Say No to Big Cat Group, Want Safari Ban to Stay

People who have lived in Nagarahole for a long time are worried about a new group called the International Big Cat Alliance. They also want the ban on wildlife safaris to continue. They believe these things could harm their forests and their way of life.
By Newsroom | Conservation, Indigenous Rights |

Tensions simmer in Nagarahole as indigenous groups call for an enduring ban on wildlife safaris and voice strong objections to the International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA), framing it as a mechanism for forest exploitation. The Nagarahole Adivasi Jamma Paale Hakku Sthapana Samithi (NAJHSS), a collective of gram sabhas representing communities like the Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba, Paniya, and Yerava, has publicly condemned the IBCA and the recent Global Big Cat Summit. Their concerns highlight a deep-seated conflict between traditional land rights, conservation strategies, and external conservation initiatives.

Tribals of Nagarahole call for continuing safari ban, condemn International Big Cat Alliance - 1

Background: A Timeline of Disruption and Discontent

The controversy gained prominence in early November 2025, following a series of fatal tiger attacks on humans in the Saragur and H.D. Kote regions, areas proximate to the Bandipur and Nagarahole Tiger Reserves.

Tribals of Nagarahole call for continuing safari ban, condemn International Big Cat Alliance - 2

  • November 7, 2025: In response to these incidents, Karnataka Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre ordered the immediate suspension of safari operations in both Nagarahole and Bandipur Tiger Reserves. Trekking in conflict-prone zones was also banned statewide. Safari staff were redeployed to assist in tiger rescue operations.

  • November 2025 onwards: The suspension of safaris triggered significant economic repercussions. Ecotourism stakeholders, including resort owners and travel agents, reported substantial daily losses, estimating collective daily losses exceeding ₹3 crore. The state also faced an estimated loss of ₹60-70 lakh per day in GST revenue. International travel agents began rerouting tourists, impacting advance bookings.

  • December 2025: A growing chorus emerged from tourism operators, travel associations, and even some wildlife experts advocating for the resumption of safaris. Arguments centered on the lack of direct evidence linking safaris to the attacks and the severe economic distress faced by communities dependent on tourism.

  • Early February 2026: Ahead of the Global Big Cat Summit, the NAJHSS voiced its strongest objections. They labeled the IBCA as a "facade" for land occupation and exploitation, asserting that their conservation methods are rooted in exclusion. The summit, scheduled for February 9-13, was criticized for taking place amidst global concern over climate change and human rights violations against indigenous peoples.

  • February 2026: The NAJHSS continued its advocacy, explicitly condemning the IBCA and calling for the continuation of the safari ban. They accused government departments and conservation groups of advancing "extractive agendas" and highlighted historical dispossession dating back to the 19th century.

Evidence of Indigenous Concerns and Economic Impact

The NAJHSS’s stance is built on historical grievances and contemporary observations:

Tribals of Nagarahole call for continuing safari ban, condemn International Big Cat Alliance - 3

  • Traditional Governance vs. External Agendas:

  • The NAJHSS argues that their communities have lived in Nagarahole for generations, practicing customary methods that treat humans, animals, and forests as interconnected.

  • They contend that these traditional practices, recognized under acts like the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act and the Forest Rights Act, are undermined by official actions.

  • The organization claims forest officials have filed cases and issued threats against community members, even for sacred rituals, despite traditional governance systems.

  • They see the IBCA and the summit as efforts to legitimize the extraction of forest resources and further dispossess indigenous peoples.

  • Economic Fallout of the Ban:

  • KETRA (Karnataka Ecotourism Resorts Association) members report daily losses exceeding ₹3 crore.

  • State-owned Jungle Lodges and Resorts incurred daily losses of approximately ₹30 lakh.

  • The state government faced a daily loss of ₹60-70 lakh in GST revenue due to the safari suspension.

  • Thousands of families, including safari drivers and guides, depend directly on safari-related employment.

  • The ban has led to mass cancellations, significant declines in resort bookings, and is reportedly disrupting the plans of foreign tourists who book travel months in advance.

The IBCA and the Global Big Cat Summit

The International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) and its associated Global Big Cat Summit have become a focal point for the NAJHSS's opposition.

Tribals of Nagarahole call for continuing safari ban, condemn International Big Cat Alliance - 4

  • Accusations of Exploitation:

  • The NAJHSS labels the IBCA as a tool to "legitimise extraction of forests, people and animals."

  • They describe IBCA's conservation methods as based on "exclusion and extraction."

  • The federation accused the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Tiger Conservation Authority, and various conservation groups of advancing these extractive agendas.

  • Summit Proceedings and Participants:

  • The Global Big Cat Summit was scheduled to take place in Bandipur and Nagarahole from February 9 to 13, 2026.

  • The summit's agenda included sessions on collaborative conservation, landscape approaches, community stewardship, and immersive wildlife tourism.

  • Delegates included retired and current officials from forest departments and wildlife authorities, indicating official support for the IBCA's objectives.

Divergent Perspectives on Safari Operations

The debate over resuming safaris reveals a clear division between conservationists advocating for indigenous rights and those focused on economic recovery and alternative conservation models.

Indigenous Federation (NAJHSS)Tourism Stakeholders & Some Officials
Safari BanDemand for continuation; sees it as necessary to halt exploitation.
IBCA/SummitStrongly condemn; view it as a tool for extraction and dispossession.
Cause of ConflictImplied to be related to forest management and historical dispossession.
Conservation FocusTraditional, community-based practices, human-animal-forest equality.
Economic ImpactAcknowledged, but secondary to the preservation of rights and forests.

Expert Analysis and Official Stance

Official responses have oscillated between addressing immediate safety concerns and exploring economic recovery.

"Ahead of the initial proceedings of the Global Big Cat Summit… the Nagarahole Adivasi Jamma Paale Hakku Sthapana Samithi (NAJHSS)… have alleged that the International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) is a facade to further occupy indigenous lands and intensify their exploitation." (Article 2)

  • Karnataka State Board for Wildlife (SBWL): In late 2025, the SBWL recommended a gradual reopening of safari operations, forming an expert committee to assess carrying capacity.

  • Anil Kumble: Former cricketer and Karnataka's forest ambassador stated there was no direct evidence linking safaris to animals straying into human settlements.

  • Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre: Initially ordered the ban following fatal attacks, directing staff to focus on tiger capture operations. Later, discussions and reviews for resuming safaris commenced.

  • Wildlife Experts: Several experts maintain that the recent tiger attacks occurred in ranges significantly distant from designated safari zones, suggesting the ban may not be directly addressing the root cause of the attacks.

Conclusion and Implications

The situation in Nagarahole presents a complex intersection of indigenous rights, conservation strategies, and economic pressures. The NAJHSS's resolute opposition to the IBCA and their demand for a continuing safari ban underscore a deep mistrust of external conservation models perceived as exploitative. Their call for the recognition of community forest and habitat rights under the Forest Rights Act remains a central demand.

Simultaneously, the severe economic impact of the safari ban on local communities and the broader tourism sector has led to strong calls for its immediate resumption. Stakeholders argue that tourism provides essential livelihoods and that the ban is disproportionately affecting them without direct causal links to the wildlife attacks.

The Karnataka government faces the intricate challenge of balancing these competing interests. The future of safari operations and the success of conservation initiatives in Nagarahole will likely hinge on how effectively these divergent perspectives are addressed and whether a framework can be established that respects indigenous rights while supporting sustainable economic development.

Sources Used:

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why do the local tribes oppose the International Big Cat Alliance?
They believe the group is a way to take over their lands and use the forests for business, instead of protecting them in a way that includes the local people.
Q: Why do they want the safari ban to continue?
They feel the ban helps stop the harm to their forests and their way of life. They are also concerned about past actions by forest officials.
Q: What is the economic impact of the safari ban?
The ban has caused big money losses for hotels, travel agents, and the government. Many people who work in tourism have lost their jobs.
Q: What do some others think about the safari ban?
Many people in the tourism business and some experts want the safaris to start again. They say there is no proof that safaris cause tiger attacks and that the economy is suffering.