As leopard and tiger sightings near human settlements in Kerala become alarmingly frequent, the forest department's standard response has been swift deployment of trap cages and surveillance cameras. But in a crisis that is escalating both in frequency and fatality, it’s time to ask: Are these tools truly solutions—or just temporary distractions from deeper failures?
Cages and camera traps do serve an immediate purpose. Cameras help track animal movements, and cages can isolate a specific predator once it is identified. But neither of these methods addresses the root of the issue: the collapsing boundary between forest and human life.
What’s happening in Kerala is not just a wildlife problem—it’s a land-use disaster. Rampant encroachment, deforestation, illegal farming near reserve borders, and shrinking prey base in the wild have driven apex predators like tigers and leopards closer to villages in search of food. In this context, a cage is not a solution—it’s a reaction. And cameras? They only show us what we already know: the wild is knocking on our doorstep.
Moreover, relying solely on such tools diverts public attention from the long-overdue systemic interventions we need. Where is the investment in buffer zones? Where is the scientific land-use planning that respects forest ecosystems? Where is the human-animal conflict mitigation policy that includes real compensation, relocation strategies, and rapid response teams?
Forest officers on the ground are often under-equipped, overworked, and caught between political pressure and public panic. Without stronger policies, more funding, and interdepartmental coordination, their efforts—even with cages and cameras—are like trying to plug a leaking dam with their fingers.
The truth is stark: cameras and cages may capture the moment, but only vision and policy will capture the solution.
If we continue down this path of temporary fixes and headline-driven responses, we’re not protecting either wildlife or human lives—we're gambling with both. And in this dangerous game, neither the leopard nor the villager is truly safe.