The wildlife week is behind us. But what lies ahead is the big question of whether we really care about our wildlife.

This month another  tiger was killed at Nagarhole national park, caught in snares used for birds and animals.

Tigers are few and naturally, the reported deaths will be few. But it has become fairly routine to read news reports on elephant deaths in the media.

The causes could range from speeding trains and trucks to poison or poaching. According to the WWI figures, over 80 per cent of elephant habitat in India experiences human disturbance, and about 100 elephants die annually from conflict with humans.

Whether it be a railway track running through Rani-Garbhanga Reserve Forest in Assam or on the neighbourhood Bandipur roads, there is scant regard for animals.

The planning and development authorities merrily go about converting metre gauge to broad gauge in areas that cut across national parks even as city planners lay roads with a finesse without bothering to consult the forest department except in the final sanctioning stages.

No wonder, human comfort and priorities figure high in the designs of those seeking votes. But even considering the argument that the human species ranks above others and has to be considered first, surely the same argument expects more wisdom from the species?

For instance, how many of us are willing to agree with the late naturalist M Krishnan that the Constitution does not recognise that “the identity of a country depended not so much on its mutable human culture as on its geomorphology, flora and fauna, its natural basis.”

Every now and then, there are reports of the government setting up wildlife crime bureaus, more tiger reserves, releasing funds, etc. This is the kind of lip service wildlife can expect.

How else does one explain the way the government sanctions (backed of course by committees and experts) forest rights to tribals and villagers when there is tremendous pressure on resources? There is enough evidence to show the harmful effects of allowing people to live in and around protected areas, whether in terms of conspiring with poachers or merely the exploitation of timber and forest produce.

It is not money and programmes that are crucial to save our wildlife as much as protection from human disturbance. If we are unable to cordon off three per cent of our geographical area totally from outside influences, we perhaps do not deserve to retain our wildlife. Zoos are a better place.