Plus
22nd October 2000
Front Page
News/Comment
Editorial/Opinion| Business| Sports|
Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine
The Sunday Times on the Web
Line

Should park bungalows be shut?

Yes-Open to abuse 

By Rukshan Jayewardene Archaeologist and Conservationist 
Nature-loving Sri Lankans have long had the option of booking bungalows located within national parks and staying in them for a few days. To these people, other ways of visiting and seeing the national park are but poor substitutes. An often heard statement that can hardly be refuted is "if you really want to get a feel for the park, you have to stay in a bungalow". 

Recently however, a protected-area management project proposal for funding by the Asian Development Bank has mooted that park bungalows be discontinued. Once cleared of all traces of construction, the bungalow-sites will be allowed to revert back to jungle, though a couple of bungalows in each park are earmarked for reservation as research facilities. In their place, park visitors will be housed in facilities (yet to be developed) just outside the buffer zones. 

These proposals have elicited howls of protest from the handful of regular bungalows occupants, though the debate is still in its infancy. 

It is natural to feel indignant when a long-extended privilege is finally withdrawn, but we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Surely, nobody believes that a permanent visitor- presence within the park is conducive to animal activity.

Certainly, animals become accustomed to seeing humans around park bungalows, but we are not a part of their ecosystem and our presence and activities are therefore always intrusive. 

The areas surrounding many bungalows have become massive rubbish tips. Recently, trailer-loads of non-biodegradable garbage were removed at the insistence of the new director. However, in a department where directors have changed more frequently than the weather in Colombo, the good work of one director can quickly be undone by the inaction of his successors. Resident visitors also contribute to noise and light pollution in parks. Water pumps, lights, loud speech and laughter characterize the typical bungalow resident, and these disturbances could modify animal behaviour in subtle but important and as yet little understood ways. The impact is of greater significance because almost all bungalows are situated near water sources that animals need to visit for their very survival. 

An often-heard argument is that overnight visitors deter poaching. Yet, while bungalow residents often hear gunshots, there is nothing they can do to help, being forbidden to move out of the bungalows after dark. 

There are also numerous claims that bungalow visitors regularly violate park rules, eg. that they should return to their bungalows by 7 p.m. While staying at Heenwewa, I myself have watched a party at the Ondaatje bungalow exit the park at 7.40 p.m., and even later than that on another occasion. Yala is now jokingly referred to among trackers as a 'night safari'. 

Bungalow bookings are also open to abuse through political interference. Applicants queuing up on the official booking day last April found that most Yala bungalows had already been booked on all weekends by politicians and their lackeys. I have also reliably learnt that a politician staying at one of the bungalows in Udawalawe had venison cooked for him: the meat was from a deer shot within the national park. 

Finally, carefully monitored hotels and other accommodation that will replace park bungalows will alleviate the relentless tide of humanity that laps up against and erodes the buffer zone through firewood collection and livestock intrusion. 

Since of late the tremendous environmental impact of goats feeding on any available green fodder outside Yala's buffer zone is clearly visible. These goats are free to go in and out of the buffer zone. If wildlife-dependent development takes place in these zones outside the parks, it is in the developers' interest to safeguard the environment. People who today live a poverty-stricken existence practising slash and burn farming will find gainful employment in these new tourist facilities. At last the poor who live around parks will see them as sources of income and employment.

If people living around parks benefit economically from live wild animals, the incentive to kill them too, will disappear. 

Short of this transformation of attitudes, and the overall value addition resulting from carefully planned and managed eco-tourism, national parks and wildlife have a dim future in this crowded island. However, the success of any new scheme of park management will of course, hinge on successful implementation through the commitment of individuals and agencies.
 

No-They're for genuine nature-lovers

Dr.H.I.E. Katugaha Conservationist 
It has been my good fortune to be able to visit Yala and Wilpattu National Parks since 1950. I have had the pleasure of occupying all the bungalows at Yala, though Wilpattu's Manikapola Uttu and Kali Villu bungalows were our favourites in those days gone by. Many are the incidents that come to mind. 

A herd of elephants coming to water at Kali Villu while we were relaxing in the bungalow; two leopards attacking a wild boar opposite the Manikapola bungalow (we had a grandstand view from our armchairs); and on another occasion when a bear simply walked up to the Manikapola bungalow and the caretaker had to shoo him off. 

At Yala, every bungalow has its share of memories: The Old Buttuwa bungalow, now sadly in ruins, was one of our favourites. Elephants never failed us. Sometimes a tusker would walk up, or a whole herd would come to water at the waterhole opposite the bungalow. 

The sight of a leopard on the rock during the late evening, enjoying the breeze, or of a bear that calmly walked past as we sat out after dinner are still vivid memories. 

During the drought, one has to only sit out at the Heenwewa bungalow and observe all the animals that come to water to the tank. There is no need to go on round, adding to the traffic already heavy everywhere in the park. 

We are now informed that the Department is considering closing these bungalows to the public. 

Why? Some of the reasons given are that only a few people regularly book the bungalows; that bungalow visitors misbehave; that the cost of upkeep of the bungalows outweighs revenue from them; that additional quarters are needed for park staff and researchers; and that in-park bungalows are stifling eco-tourist operations in the areas surrounding the parks. 

I grant that only several hundred devoted wildlife enthusiasts use park bungalows each year. 

The trouble one has to endure in order to secure a booking (the best locations and dates being taken up by politicians out of turn) is evidence that bungalow residents are fanatical nature-lovers. 

If the public is not allowed to use these bungalows, they will simply be transformed into circuit bungalows, the private domain of politicians and officials to use and gift as they wish, for activities good and ill. Research is always welcome, and even now several projects are in progress. 

Researchers often need to reside within the park, close to the animals they are studying. I remember when the Smithsonian Institution study of elephants was being done, the scientists camped out at Patanangala - they did not occupy the few bungalows within the park. Even famous workers like Ian Douglas-Hamilton, Cynthia Moss, Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey, conducted their studies in tented camps: they did not occupy park bungalows. 

In the 1950s and 1960s there never was any trouble. The trouble began when Yala became the only accessible big-game attraction. The rush was on and as usual, politicians too, joined in the fray. This was where the rot set in. Predictably, most of them pay no heed to park rules. Their security staff is worse. 

Several incidents have been reported in the press that they even go to the extent of assaulting the park officers on duty. This is a criminal offense and we wonder why legal action is not taken against offenders. 

Remove well-meaning nature lovers from the parks, and power-mad politicians and officials will have the place to themselves.

What a joy it was to see the clikes of Dudley Senanayake and Ranasinghe Premadasa in the park in the 1950s. They obeyed all the park rules and enjoyed the park, shooting only with their cameras. 

I can only make a plea. In the old days we could book a bungalow for any number of days, then it became a week, followed by five days and now it is three days. 

The difficulty in getting a booking, only those who try know. Keeping these enthusiasts out will certainly lead to a deterioration of standards in the parks in general, for the bungalows will never be demolished or used for legitimate purposes: they will become purely objects of patronage and abuse. 

May I also make a plea, if the bungalows are to be closed to the public. Please do not proceed with the move till alternative accommodation is found outside the park. Don't throw the genuine nature lover out, to be at the mercy of hoteliers. 

The above article has been reproduced courtesy 'Sri Lanka Nature', a quarterly magazine which carries a wide variety of articles on nature. Yearly subscriptions are available at Rs 800 (four issues) from the Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust, 85, Cotta Rd, Colombo 8


Law and Citizen 

Dr. C. Ananda Grero 

The spirit of driving

A person holding a driving licence is entitled to drive a vehicle on a highway. However one cannot drive a motor vehicle rashly and negligently for if so, he commits an offence. If he causes the death of a person then he commits an offence under the Penal Code. 

Section 298 of the Penal Code states: Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act (i.e. an act like driving rashly or negligently) not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both. 

In so far as negligence is concerned, a man acts negligently when he brings about a consequence which a reasonable man would have foreseen and avoided. Negligence is culpable (criminally liable) carelessness, and it is also regarded as failure to use sufficient care. 

A man is reckless with respect to the consequence of his act, when he foresees the probability that it will occur, but does not desire it nor foresee it as substantially certain. For example if D points a gun at P and pulls the trigger and does not know it to be loaded, but realizes the possibility that it may be, he is reckless with respect to that circumstances, whether he hopes it is unloaded or does not care whether it is loaded or not. 

It is also an offence under the Motor Traffic Act to drive a vehicle after consuming alcohol. If a driver is charged for driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol, the prosecution (the police) should establish that the person concerned has consumed .08 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Citizen Newton was charged by the OIC of the Borella Police on three counts: 

(i) That on or about November 6 1991, at Colombo, he caused the death of one Lakshman Silva, a student, by driving car No. 15 Sri 0078 rashly. He thereby committed an offence under section 298 of the Penal Code. 

(ii) In the alternative at the time and place aforesaid, the said accused caused the death of the deceased above named by driving the said car negligently, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 298 of the Penal Code. 

(iii) That at the time and place aforesaid, the accused drove the car on a highway after consuming alcohol or any drug and caused the death of the deceased above named. He thereby committed an offence punishable under section 216 (A) read with section 151 (1A) and section 214-(1) (a) of the Motor Traffic Act. 

The Magistrate after trial where the accused citizen Newton did not give evidence or call any witnesses found him guilty on counts (i ) and (iii) sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, in respect of each count. 

The cancellation of the driving licence was also ordered. Newton appealed against this conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. 

A similar matter came up before Justice Dr. A.De Z. Gunawardena in the case of Sumanaratne Vs. O.I.C. Police Station Borella and another and was reported in (1991) Sri Lanka Law Reports at page 345. When the appeal was argued, the Court of Appeal considered the entire evidence led at the trial by the prosecution and Justice Gunawardena held that conviction on count (i) was well founded and should stand. 

The counsel for the accused appellant (like Newton) submitted that the charge under count (iii) was not maintainable because the prosecution had failed to prove ingredients of the offence under section 151 (1B) of the Motor Traffic Act, namely that the accused (like Newton) had "consumed alcohol". 

Justice Gunawardena took into consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the accused appellant and also having well considered the relevant provisions of the Motor Traffic Act observed: 

"The evidence that is available in this case is that it is stated in the Medico-Legal Report that the accused (like Newton) " smells of liquor" in addition to P.S.Welikada who speaks of a smell of liquor emanating from the mouth of the accused. It is clear that smelling of liquor and finding .08 grams or more grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (as provided in section 151 F or the Motor Traffic Act) are two different things. It is also pertinent to note that it is the amendment to the Motor Traffic Act, which introduced the norm of "consumed alcohol" for the first time. Till then the two known concepts in or law were "under the influence of liquor" and " smelling of liquor". What is required under Section 151 of the Motor Traffic Act is to prove that the accused had consumed alcohol by adducing evidence that the concentration of alcohol in his blood is .08 or more grams per 100 millilitres of blood." 

He further held that taking into consideration of the evidence in this case, the aforesaid ingredient of the offence has not been proved by the prosecution and therefore conviction and the sentence of the accused on count (iii) cannot stand. 

He set aside such conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused of the said charge. 

As he had upheld the conviction on account (i) it was considered at the request of the counsel for appellant whether sentence could be reduced as it was seen that it was the first time after obtaining his driving licence in 1981 that he was charged with committing any kind of offence. 

Thus he was treated as a first offender, and two years rigorous imprisonment was suspended for a period of five years. In addition to this, fine of Rs. 2500 was imposed on him. As the conviction on count (iii) was set aside and the accused was acquitted the order made by the Magistrate to cancel his driving licence was also set aside. 

Names are fictitious

Index Page
Front Page
News/Comments
Editorial/Opinion
Business
Sports
Sports Plus
Mirrror Magazine
Line

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents

Line

Plus Archives

Front Page| News/Comment| Editorial/Opinion| Plus| Business| Sports| Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine

Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to 

The Sunday Times or to Information Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.

Presented on the World Wide Web by Infomation Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.
Hosted By LAcNet