The focus on Shettihalli Sanctuary Boundary Review has intensified in Karnataka as debates continue over the proposal to reduce the sanctuary’s notified area in Shivamogga district. The controversy has brought together government authorities, environmentalists, and local communities, all highlighting different perspectives on conservation, law, and development. Recently, Karnataka Forest Minister Shri Eshwar Khandre visited the sanctuary to assess the situation firsthand and understand the concerns on the ground. His visit underscores the sensitive balance between protecting biodiversity and addressing the needs of local residents.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Government’s Rationale for Boundary Rationalisation

During his visit, Minister Khandre explained that the Forest Department has been working to correct the sanctuary’s boundary since 2016. According to him, the originally notified boundary included urban areas such as a bus station, government buildings, and sections of the city, which do not align with the ecological purpose of the sanctuary.

The minister added that the Forest Department has conducted several inspections, held two review meetings, and is planning additional consultations to reach a decision that addresses both conservation needs and the livelihoods of people living nearby. Officials argue that these changes are meant to rationalize the boundary to make it more practical and legally consistent.

Dispute Over Sanctuary Area

The heart of the controversy lies in the reported area of the sanctuary. The Forest Department claims that the sanctuary’s actual extent is around 395 sq km, significantly less than the 695 sq km recorded in official documents. They assert that the larger figure entered records by mistake.

Conservationists, however, disagree. They point out that Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary was officially notified in 1974 under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the legal description of the boundary places it at over 700 sq km. They emphasize that under the law, the sanctuary’s boundary description, not the numerical area, defines the protected zone. This legal nuance has become a key point in ongoing debates and court deliberations.

Role of Wildlife Boards and Legal Complications

The National Board of Wildlife, which advises on matters concerning protected areas, initially approved Karnataka’s proposal to reduce the sanctuary to 395 sq km. However, the approval was conditional, suggesting that two forest patches should be added to the buffer zone of the Bhadra Tiger Reserve.

Later, the Union environment minister recommended that these forest areas remain part of Shettihalli Sanctuary instead of being transferred. This recommendation caused further legal and administrative complications, prompting the state wildlife board to defer the decision. Officials cited complex legal implications, including adherence to national wildlife laws and Supreme Court precedents, as reasons for postponing any final change.

Conservationists’ Concerns and Legal Precedents

Environmental groups have strongly objected to the proposal to reduce the sanctuary’s boundaries. They argue that reducing the area would violate established legal principles and could set a dangerous precedent for other protected areas. They also raised concerns about excluding nearly 30,000 acres of forest land due to encroachment.

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which assists the Supreme Court on environmental matters, has been approached by these groups to highlight potential violations. Conservationists emphasize that the sanctuary plays a crucial role in protecting biodiversity, including key species in the region, and reducing its boundary could have long-term ecological consequences. Supreme Court judgments have historically upheld the legal description of sanctuary boundaries over mere area figures, giving weight to conservationists’ arguments.

Impact on Local Communities

While conservation concerns are at the forefront, local communities also have stakes in the boundary review. People living near the sanctuary depend on forest resources for their livelihoods, including minor forest produce and traditional farming. The government aims to balance ecological protection with socio-economic needs, making consultations and boundary inspections critical.

Minister Khandre’s visit to Shettihalli Sanctuary allowed officials to interact with locals and evaluate areas affected by proposed boundary changes. The government claims that rationalizing the sanctuary boundary will prevent conflicts with urban and semi-urban areas while still safeguarding core wildlife zones.

Importance of Legal and Ecological Balance

The ongoing debate over the Shettihalli Sanctuary Boundary Review illustrates the delicate balance between legal frameworks, ecological conservation, and developmental pressures. While the Forest Department argues for practical boundary rationalization, conservationists and legal experts stress strict adherence to wildlife laws and previous Supreme Court rulings.

Officials are now working to ensure that any final decision aligns with legal requirements, considers ecological integrity, and addresses the concerns of local communities. Multiple inspections, review meetings, and consultations with national wildlife authorities are planned to arrive at a resolution that is acceptable to all stakeholders.

Future of Shettihalli Sanctuary Amid Boundary Review

The sanctuary remains a significant ecological and legal asset for Karnataka. Its forests provide habitat for endangered species and contribute to regional biodiversity. As discussions continue, the state government, conservation groups, and legal authorities face the challenge of protecting this vital ecosystem while responding to socio-economic and administrative realities. The outcome of the boundary review will set an important precedent for future management of protected areas in the country.