Both Thais And Foreigners To Pay More For Entry To Some National Parks

[cowslip]

As there is no wildlife forum, I'll post this here.

Maybe a mod can think of a better place to put it?

Thailand has a system of government that largely involves decrees or announcements; rather than planning, research or consultation some nabob with an over inflated perception of his importance and competence usually emerges from some reverie to announce to his subservient and uncritical staff that the “following changes will be made”. They are then expected to implement this pronouncement regardless of how impractical or inappropriate it maybe.

Few of these decisions are ever questioned or repealed but many end up being quietly side-lined or gradually disregarded, this way the pompous originator is allowed to carry on without loss of face.

Occasionally some of the “nape-of-the-neck” thinking produces short-term results and everyone thinks it is working, but this doesn’t alter the fact that policy-making in Thailand is so often a hit and miss affair based on NO real research or consultation, and with all the concomitant potential for failure or worse, disaster

Today I hear of another announcement that bears all the hallmarks of such a decision. That is the raising of the entrance fees to National Parks. Thai citizens have their fee raised from about 40 to 100 baht and foreigners from 400 to 500.

The previous entrance fees were in many cases waived or reduced after it was realised that this system simply doesn’t work. As this fee is PER ENTRY, it is obviously impractical for those who wish to spend more than one day in the park as every day or re-entry they have to any again. Some parks have even notices indicating reduced feed for foreigners who are living/working in Thailand.....to sum up the system was and still is a mess.

The current bosses of the National Parks Wildlife and Plant conservation have been lauded for their clearing of resorts that encroached on National parks, a move that needed little planning or research and gives the perception of “something being done”.

However with the increase in park fees announced today they seem to have taken a big step backwards.

That the National Parks are underfunded is not in dispute and is a National disgrace, but raising the fees to visitors would seem to be a classic improperly researched, knee-jerk decision, on par with the resort demolitions.

Many countries have spend both money and time on how to manage national resources - from National Parks to Art Galleries. This is done on the basis that they are NATIONAL RESOURCES and therefore there for the people to enjoy and appreciate. .......The Thailand the government has failed to finance or even fully acknowledge the wealth of natural resources that the country has, and as a result has second-rate people with second rate funding doing a second-rate job.

Fees into parks are not necessarily the way to raise money - in fact they usually result in a REDUCTION in visitor numbers and a loss of income. This could be regarded as beneficial to the wildlife as the management of visitors to the parks leaves a lot to be desired. But realistically a well managed park with an appropriate number of visitors can be more than a source of income it is a valuable source of education for a nation that desperately needs to get up to speed on issues of conservation wildlife and ecology.

Thailand is not a poor country and rather than corrupt individuals seeing what they can get for themselves out of the government departments they are in, it would be nice if for once a Thai government admitted it had a responsibility to look after the nation’s natural resources and faced up to the task of funding it properly....or continue to loose its wealth of natural beauty to corrupt and greedy businesses and poorly paid officials who are easy prey for those with a fistful of baht.

[samran]

Two thoughts about this post.

1) Given the weekly dose of hairpulling over national park entry prices - who would have thought the TV punters were such bunch of greenie tree huggers?

2) Well intentioned post. Some of his thoughts on policy making deserve some merit especially if it is a politician shooting his mouth off, but his comments ignore the fact their are often vast resources and time spent on policy reviews such as this if done at a civil service level. Without reference to the policy making process on this particular issue, the OP's post is mostly hyperbole.

I also don't get the contradiction - the need to raise more funding is obvious. The need to manage the number of people using the parks is acknoledged. But, the simplest way to do this, by raising park fees (which in real terms probably haven't been raised much at all over the past two decades) smacks of economic illiteracy and the understanding that in a resource constrained civil service, policies like this, which may not be perfect but acheive 80% of the intended goal are probably better than keeping the status quo.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The Thai-national price hike is also too high. With two adults and two children that means a whopping 300 baht to go look at a waterfall. Sorry, but no.

Prediction: There will be some mild uproar, the Thai prices will be reduced to 60 baht 'for the coming year', while the foreign price stays up there forever. (Or, until the next hike). Meanwhile, Thais and foreigners alike will get even more clever in dodging all fees completely.

And this of course goes without saying, but the 500 baht foreigner price is of course totally ludicrous. You can sample Thailand's nature a lot more intimately for that sort of money.

[taninthai]

Any link to this info all the parks near me are 20 bht thai 200 bht ferang

Link please

[chrisinth]

My understanding of how this works is that the tourist doesn't have a clue what they are paying, and as long as that happens it will continue. If those increases happen then that will be a clear 400% profit for every foreign visitor that goes into one of the national parks.

What is the price difference based on? It doesn't really concern me as I pay Thai prices (if ever I wanted to go into one of the parks) but I have always been curious about this price gap. A markup is a markup, but that is insane.

[Khonwan]

And don’t forget the additional charge for the vehicle. At these prices, I’m glad my house is only 2 metres from Mae Wong National Park, i.e. free access. Was once delighted to spot an Asian golden cat (เสือไฟ, seua fai, fire tiger) whilst walking on the hill behind the house.

I don’t think foreign tourists will balk at the new prices but locals probably will, resulting in reduced revenue.

[cowslip]

Any link to this info all the parks near me are 20 bht thai 200 bht ferang

Link please

Cannot link as TV will erase it - OK?

[LennyW]

My understanding of how this works is that the tourist doesn't have a clue what they are paying, and as long as that happens it will continue. If those increases happen then that will be a clear 400% profit for every foreign visitor that goes into one of the national parks.

What is the price difference based on? It doesn't really concern me as I pay Thai prices (if ever I wanted to go into one of the parks) but I have always been curious about this price gap. A markup is a markup, but that is insane.

Or a 400% loss for every Thai that goes in - did you ever consider it that way?

[cowslip]

And don’t forget the additional charge for the vehicle. At these prices, I’m glad my house is only 2 metres from Mae Wong National Park, i.e. free access. Was once delighted to spot an Asian golden cat (เสือไฟ, seua fai, fire tiger) whilst walking on the hill behind the house.

I don’t think foreign tourists will balk at the new prices but locals probably will, resulting in reduced revenue.

Fistly I'd like to know where the research is and how they came to this decision.

As far as numbers are concerned.

Foreigners don't seem to visit the parks nearly as much as they would say in Ausralia or Africa....this would suggest that as a tourist draw they are under utilised.

I would take you point that a casual visitor might just pay. I personally know of several people who either turned back when they realised how much it would cost or who won't go into ANY park because of the fee differential.

I would challenge that the differential actually brings in a single extra setang.

Any visitor to a NP will on the 2nd or 3rd day begin to consider wether it is good value or not.

Firstly they have to pay every time they enter the park - a bit annoying if you pop down the road for a meal.

If you have a car, family of four and rent a tent, it then becomes more expensive than some hotels. So it would be impossible for a family on a budget to stay there for any length of time.

All this reduces the mount of income the parks can derive from visitors - they simply price themselves out of the market.

This time even the Thai people will have to bear a huge price hike - a bigger percentage than foreigners even. but to what avail?

THe parks should either be free (check out other countries policies) - or at least have a rational price structure that is aimed at increasing visitors and income to the park....e.g. Family passes, week passes, group passes etc etc....as for the differential, I think nothing makes a foreigner feel more unwelcome than being told they have to pay more than Thai people, and why? Because they are foreign........a great deterrent!

I visited London a while back and individually attractions there and transport ca be prohibitively expensive - however, if one makes use of the pre-pay facilities, such as on the net, and such things as Oyster-card for transport the place becomes much cheaper, and they still get plenty of tourists. Information and marketing are essential to running a good tourist facility - whatever it is - I see none of this in the Thai National Parks approach.

Vithya Hongvienchan is director of the National Parks Office; he has aid that the new rates will start at 29 "Grade A" NPs from Oct 1 onward.

This is a poor substitute for proper financing of the Parks - they need better pay and conditions for the rangers and other staff, this leaves them less susceptible to bribes, they also need to be trained properly. They need to be properly trained too. Most have no idea about conservation or anything to do with wildlife from a scientific perspective - so most of the time they have no idea what they are doing or why. Only a few years back the salaries for those working in the parks used to dry up and for periods of time they simply weren't paid. I don't know if this still occurs, but Park workers would then turn to hunting and devouring the very animals they were supposed to be looking after.

THere needs to be money for infrastructure - if you have people in a National Park you have to limit th amount of damage they do. Walkways and treks need to be devised to have the minimum impact on the environment. Some of the campsites I've stayed at .are a joke, something between "Hi-Dee-Hi!" and a rubbish tip.

The camping equipment offered is virtually unusual - not of it waterproof in the slightest and little or nothing is done to prevent contact between campers and wildlife - e.g.feeding etc.......

with the relatively cheap cost of labour in Thailand - especially rural Thailand - it would be a quick and easy step to revitalise a lot of the facilities open to the public and construction nature-friendly walkways through parts of the forest. (Nailing th Latin Scientific Names to trees is NOT a good educational move.

THe staff themselves are frequently out to make extra cash for themselves - overcharging and I suspect a lot of pilfering of equipment and supplies goes on - but as this becomes widespread it is then regarded by the majority as a "Perk" of the job.....and who can blame these people who are eking out a living on a pittance from a govt that simply doesn't care.

The government are meant to represent the needs of ALL the people and the Parks etc are the property of ALL the Thai people so the government should see that they fulfil their obligations and start to do something before Thailand looses a significant part of its national heritage.

[cowslip]

Two thoughts about this post.

1) Given the weekly dose of hairpulling over national park entry prices - who would have thought the TV punters were such bunch of greenie tree huggers?

2) Well intentioned post. Some of his thoughts on policy making deserve some merit especially if it is a politician shooting his mouth off, but his comments ignore the fact their are often vast resources and time spent on policy reviews such as this if done at a civil service level. Without reference to the policy making process on this particular issue, the OP's post is mostly hyperbole.

I also don't get the contradiction - the need to raise more funding is obvious. The need to manage the number of people using the parks is acknoledged. But, the simplest way to do this, by raising park fees (which in real terms probably haven't been raised much at all over the past two decades) smacks of economic illiteracy and the understanding that in a resource constrained civil service, policies like this, which may not be perfect but acheive 80% of the intended goal are probably better than keeping the status quo.

"his comments ignore the fact their are often vast resources and time spent on policy reviews such as this if done at a civil service level."

As I said - I'd like to see dome evidence what is clearly an assumption - not a fact.

Money is undoubtedly spent - but anyone with any knowledge of the Thai civil service would have serious doubts about how much money actually goes where it should.

I have to say to that am saddened to see the term "tree-hugger" illogical and wildly inaccurate, it simply shows what a massive degree of ignorance and indifference the user has when it comes to conservation.

this is underlined here....

"the simplest way to do this, by raising park fees " - there are plenty of examples world-wide if anyone cares to look of where this "simple" (0r simpleton's?) idea has achieved exactly the opposite. (i'm talking here of Nations' Heritage all over the world - parks, Museums, Art, Natural resources etc etc)

One might also asks if the amount gleaned from visitors is in fact anything more than a drop in the ocean when it comes to running and maintaining a park properly.

[taninthai]

Any link to this info all the parks near me are 20 bht thai 200 bht ferang

Link please

Cannot link as TV will erase it - OK?

Ok then just tell us where you read it you are allowed to mention other news sources just no direct links allowed

[cowslip]

Mr Vithya reckons the new fees will generate around 400 million-500 million baht per year in additional revenue. and the math this is based on?

Mr Vithya also said that "Our national park fees are very low compared to those in foreign countries in America, Europe, or even in Cambodia,"”

This is sheer nonsense - I’ll not comment on Cambodia as it is in a worse state than Thailand.

However in US and Europe or Australia the facilities at National Parks just dwarf anything offered by Thailand

The fees are different depending on Park, age, purpose of visit and of course there is often FREE access.

What about the 80 dollar US national park pass?

“2,000 federally managed recreational areas—including 462 National Parks, from the Grand Canyon to the Great Smokies.”

Seniors and juvenile passes, less than 10 bucks to Canadian passes (about 300 baht)

Stonehenge is 340 baht - (no extra because you are a foreigner - although there are discounts for various categories)

Many UK parks and museums etc are FREE.

This again seems to underline the vast lack of knowledge and research done by the minister before putting his foot well and truly in it.

[chrisinth]

My understanding of how this works is that the tourist doesn't have a clue what they are paying, and as long as that happens it will continue. If those increases happen then that will be a clear 400% profit for every foreign visitor that goes into one of the national parks.

What is the price difference based on? It doesn't really concern me as I pay Thai prices (if ever I wanted to go into one of the parks) but I have always been curious about this price gap. A markup is a markup, but that is insane.

Or a 400% loss for every Thai that goes in - did you ever consider it that way?

Thats a Scottish brain in motion right there..............

[GreenSnapper]

The Thai-national price hike is also too high. With two adults and two children that means a whopping 300 baht to go look at a waterfall. Sorry, but no.

It's only the daily minimum wage to see a waterfall in your own country.

Is there a country in the world which charges similar fees to their population?

[whistleblower]

The Thai-national price hike is also too high. With two adults and two children that means a whopping 300 baht to go look at a waterfall. Sorry, but no.

It's only the daily minimum wage to see a waterfall in your own country.

Is there a country in the world which charges similar fees to their population?

And a whopping 33 pounds for Mum Dad and 2 kids from johnny foreigner land to go and see an unkempt waterfall littered with plastic bags and empty beer bottles!

[Khonwan]

Taninthai, Google “park-entrance-fees-jump-150 Bangkok”

Cowslip, I’m slightly perplexed that in post 9 you appear to be taking issue with me over my post. Ignoring my confusion on this regard, I agree with your points, which is why I’m confuse! As it happens, my nearest village neighbour is 1km from me but I live only 200m from a forest ranger station…and have done so these past 16 years. So I know at first hand that your post is accurate.

[bootly66]

Any one know if a non native with a work permit and paying more tax than the average Thai will still pay Thai rates??? Although this has never applied at Kaeng Krachan!!!

[draftvader]

....and when the visitor numbers drop significantly there'll be less fight against re-appropriating the land for more profitable, commercial, gain.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Thaivisa Connect App

[barky]

It makes no difference to me what they do with their pricing policy as I will never return to any national park till the price is exactly the same as a Thai. About 10 months after I arrived in Thailand 12 years ago, I went to Koh Sammet and as soon as I got off the boat, they hit me for 100 baht and the asian (Thai maybe, nobody ever checks) next to me paid 20 baht. (I had a Tax ID and a Thai DL) but these made no difference. Ever since then I have never been back to a Thai national park or any place for that matter where I know I'm gonna be charged more.

It's not a problem for me. I just go some other place or invariably save my dosh and travel overseas once or twice a year. I don't feel I'm missing a thing, but Thailand's parks and other attractions that charge "a westerner price" have lost over 11 years of revenue from me. By way of example, in 3 weeks time I'm holidaying in Australia (Brisbane for 10 days) and then in mid-November I'm off to Beijing for 8 -10 days. Flights (Brisbane and Beijing), hotels, food, sight seeing, entry-fees, hire car (in Brisbane) etc etc....you add it up. Yeah, I know I'm just one and the Thai govt. couldn't care less. A drop in the ocean. But, I'm happy and that's all that counts:-)

[JurgenG]

I can only speak about what I know. We spend a lot of time in a house near the Tublan National Park in Wang Nam Khieo. Before Mr Damrong starts messing around, we were enjoying quite a number of tourist who came to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. Of them, how many were visiting the national park ? Almost nobody ! I say almost because if you take the wrong turn when visiting the mushroom farm, you end up in the national park .

At the same time, a local entrepreneur opened a floral park (now closed, tks Demolition Man), that was able to attract busload of tourists despite the fact that he was charging the entry B90.

So on the one hand, you have a very successful tourist area , very popular and that attracts thousand of tourists and on the other hand, less than 10 km from there, you have a national park that nobody visit. What is the solution ? In a very North Korean way, you thanks the private investors for the entrepreneurship, their creativity and their longtime financial commitment for the area, and you kick them out and take over.

Because this is what it is about. In the plans for the financing of the National Parks, running resorts is one of the major sources of revenue (with logging !!! and I'm not making that up !). But why bother with trying to reinvent the wheel when you can just take away what others have already done ?

[cowslip]

Any one know if a non native with a work permit and paying more tax than the average Thai will still pay Thai rates??? Although this has never applied at Kaeng Krachan!!!

there is a notice at Kaeng Krachan visitor centre that clearly states reduced rates for foreigners with Thai DL or similar ID

[cowslip]

Taninthai, Google “park-entrance-fees-jump-150 Bangkok”

Cowslip, I’m slightly perplexed that in post 9 you appear to be taking issue with me over my post. Ignoring my confusion on this regard, I agree with your points, which is why I’m confuse! As it happens, my nearest village neighbour is 1km from me but I live only 200m from a forest ranger station…and have done so these past 16 years. So I know at first hand that your post is accurate.

Yes, see what you mean I think I must have accidentally quoted the wrong post in my reply .......

[cowslip]

I can only speak about what I know. We spend a lot of time in a house near the Tublan National Park in Wang Nam Khieo. Before Mr Damrong starts messing around, we were enjoying quite a number of tourist who came to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. Of them, how many were visiting the national park ? Almost nobody ! I say almost because if you take the wrong turn when visiting the mushroom farm, you end up in the national park .

At the same time, a local entrepreneur opened a floral park (now closed, tks Demolition Man), that was able to attract busload of tourists despite the fact that he was charging the entry B90.

So on the one hand, you have a very successful tourist area , very popular and that attracts thousand of tourists and on the other hand, less than 10 km from there, you have a national park that nobody visit. What is the solution ? In a very North Korean way, you thanks the private investors for the entrepreneurship, their creativity and their longtime financial commitment for the area, and you kick them out and take over.

Because this is what it is about. In the plans for the financing of the National Parks, running resorts is one of the major sources of revenue (with logging !!! and I'm not making that up !). But why bother with trying to reinvent the wheel when you can just take away what others have already done ?

If you build private businesses on a National Park then that land is no longer national Park - if you build without permission then you are a vandal....or maybe you should find out what "encroachment " means

[JurgenG]

I can only speak about what I know. We spend a lot of time in a house near the Tublan National Park in Wang Nam Khieo. Before Mr Damrong starts messing around, we were enjoying quite a number of tourist who came to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. Of them, how many were visiting the national park ? Almost nobody ! I say almost because if you take the wrong turn when visiting the mushroom farm, you end up in the national park .

At the same time, a local entrepreneur opened a floral park (now closed, tks Demolition Man), that was able to attract busload of tourists despite the fact that he was charging the entry B90.

So on the one hand, you have a very successful tourist area , very popular and that attracts thousand of tourists and on the other hand, less than 10 km from there, you have a national park that nobody visit. What is the solution ? In a very North Korean way, you thanks the private investors for the entrepreneurship, their creativity and their longtime financial commitment for the area, and you kick them out and take over.

Because this is what it is about. In the plans for the financing of the National Parks, running resorts is one of the major sources of revenue (with logging !!! and I'm not making that up !). But why bother with trying to reinvent the wheel when you can just take away what others have already done ?

If you build private businesses on a National Park then that land is no longer national Park - if you build without permission then you are a vandal....or maybe you should find out what "encroachment " means

That's the point, the villagers argue that their land doesn't depend from the National Park administration since the year 2000 survey.

The national park was established in 1981 while the land was cleared in the 70's. When the park was established, people who were living there were given some rights and some land titles. All was ok as long as they were subsistence farmers and didn't make money. Unfortunately they proved that properly developed their land has a big hidden value. So suddenly the forest department wake up and say "Wait a minute, you're making money now ? I want my land back !"

Unfortunately it's not the forest department land any more. Since the year 2000 survey, it has been commonly accepted that the area that Damrong claims is no longer part of the national park, a fact that Damrong conveniently forget. Or pretend to forget because so far the resorts that he had teared down are within the border that are accepted by everybody. For the resorts that are in the grey zone, he has made a lot of noise but done nothing because he knows he is on shaky legal ground there.

Sorry, when I say he has done nothing, it's not exactly true. He has sent hundreds of park officers (not making that up) to survey (read terrorize) the area while at the same time every day in the news you have reports that wild life in Thailand is getting poached and meat and parts exported to foreign countries. Is it a smart use of human resources, please tell me.

[taninthai]

I can see what's going to happen here Thais will stop visiting the parks as I can't see many of them paying 100 bht apart from the ones with money obviously , the n.p will then drop the thai price back down and leave the ferang price as it is.

My misses just laughed when I told her next time we visit a n.p it will be 600 bht she said we will not be visiting at that price,it doesn't really bother me as I never go anywhere with dual pricing anyway but how they can say it won't affect numbers visiting I don't know yes the tourists will still go but the poor Thais on minimum wage will not,the only people it's hurting is the locals ,

[cowslip]

"it has been commonly accepted" - not by the courts who have backed him up.In most cases, National Parks are sacrosanct - they can't actually lose acreage no matter what the transactions were.changes to boundaries and usage are a no-no.

I do however agree that Damrung appears to be no different from any other Thai nabob in his cavalier, no consultation behaviour.

If NP boundaries are encroached on - and this is a problem all over Thailand the effects are more than just the loss of a few acres - it results in increased pressure on the animals, plants, water etc within a large radius. Unplanned drainage, water supplies and sewerage are incredibly damaging in these circumstances.

THe methods used by encroachers and developers in National Parks overtha last few decades would indicate that they too are not averse to a bit of "forceful coercion" one thing more about most rural areas - they didn't necessarily have residents when the parks were initiated, many saw this as an opportunity to make various spurious claims. Have you good information too on who actually owned the resorts = were they locals or more likely BKK businesses.

Another thing to bear in mind is te appalling state of surveying in Thailand. Example - the property scams in Samui.........land was often described as starting and finishing between such impermanent objects as trees ...... almost all real estate boundaries are debatable especially if your lawyers are wily enough.

[JurgenG]

Have you good information too on who actually owned the resorts = were they locals or more likely BKK businesses.

I would say the more modern resorts are owned by "outsiders" but not necessary by BKK people, a lot of people are from Korat and other places. Also it's not "businesses", a lot of resorts owners are retirees with some savings they have invested in a piece of land then turned it into a resort to generate incomes for their retirement. A couple of years ago you could buy land for 50 to 80K a rai.

On the other hand the small resorts (the majority), and all the shops, restaurants ... are mostly owned by locals.

The first tourists were students who were renting a field from farmers to install their tent ... About the same time, "outsiders" started to come, they were buying land mostly for week end house. The local started building small primitive bungalows for the people who wanted something more comfortable than a tent. The "outsiders" then started building improved bungalows with aircond and bathroom for more demanding guests. At the same time restaurants, mostly owned by locals, started to appear. At the very beginning it was very difficult to find a decent place to eat, trust me. It's only recently, past couple of years, that big investors arrived and started building the big resorts.

So the theory that big businessmen bribed local officials to clear forest land to make room for the resorts and develop tourism is false. Tourism was already fairly developed when they arrived. And honestly they are not "that" big. We don't have "big names", what we have are mostly retired businessman, doctors ... who bought some land for their golden years.

[bootly66]

Any one know if a non native with a work permit and paying more tax than the average Thai will still pay Thai rates??? Although this has never applied at Kaeng Krachan!!!

there is a notice at Kaeng Krachan visitor centre that clearly states reduced rates for foreigners with Thai DL or similar ID

Sorry but i am a regular visiter to KK (6 times this year already) and i have never seen this sign..But will look out next time

[Time Traveller]

Who cares if they hikes the prices? The Thai national parks are pathetic, over run with thousands of raggamuffin thais on holidays and garbage everywhere. National parks in other countries have better attractions, are better looked after and cheaper usage fees.

[Khonwan]

Parks dept. have been planting several rows of vetiver grass, these past 3 days, along the de-facto border (slightly beyond the GPS border) in my area of Mae Wong National Park to prevent further encroachment. It’s a well-intentioned activity but probably futile: Neem trees were similarly planted several years ago but our property is the only farm left with any (now around 12m tall). It is not that all my farming neighbours (I’m the only non-Thai in my village) have further encroached, more often it is simply a matter of them killing the plants by tractor-ploughing right up to them destroying them in the process.

There has been very little encroachment in my area over the years – measured in only a few meters. Logging (only ever small-scale in my area for local use during my time here though much of my farm was forest just 15 years before we moved in) is now largely prevented by the park rangers. We have a handful of persistent poachers in our village but they are almost exclusively shooting non-endangered animals such as wild boar and common squirrels for local consumption.

A different story, though, just two villages further along the park boundary where many of the villagers spend several days at a time deep in the park-forest killing many tens of small monkeys at a time and any other animal endangered or not. The rangers do try to stamp this out but it is very difficult. And yes, bribery is often in evidence but less so, I think, when the black shirted “paramilitary” unit from outside the area come in – much feared by poachers & lumbers alike.

Large animals from deer up (though not sure about tigers and other cats, or bear come to think about it) tend to have chips inserted that dissuade most poachers around here from shooting them.

The park-rangers service is definitely the Cinderella of all the government agencies with the rangers still often having to wait several months for salary payment. Their salaries are also very low despite the very real danger they face out in the community – they normally have to carry firearms wherever they go in fear of revenge attacks.

I’m no expert in this field so the above is just based on my casual observations, albeit over 16 years.