Conservation can be achieved through the judicious and context-specifi c use of protectionist and inclusionary approaches either in seclusion or conjunction. A response to Nitin Rai, "Green Grabbing in the Name of the Tiger" (EPW, 20 October 2012).

Conservation investment, particularly for charismatic and wide-ranging large mammal species, needs to be evidence-based. Despite the prevalence of this theme within the literature, examples of robust data being generated to guide conservation policy and funding decisions are rare. We present the first published case-study of tiger conservation in Indochina, from a site where an evidence-based approach has been implemented for this iconic predator and its prey.

In early 2010, after 27 years of recovery effort, the orange-bellied parrot (OBP; Neophema chrysogaster) was expected to be extinct in the wild within a few years. Shortly before the imminent wild extinction became evident, we surveyed landholders (114 responses of 783 surveys delivered) in part of the main non-breeding area, according to three classes of modelled habitat suitability ('high', 'medium', and 'low').

With decisions like the Supreme Court's interim order banning tourism inside tiger sanctuaries becoming inevitable in the face of increasing political and executive resistance to expansion of protected nature reserves on public land, the issue of tiger tourism calls for a pragmatic approach that can resolve contradictions between the burgeoning tourism demand and the tiger's shrinking habitats.

Tourism must be seen in the context of the rights of all stakeholders. More and reliable data is needed to understand whether tourism is harmful to tigers or that people living in the forests have caused the decline in the tigers' population. The more central issue of the implementation of the Forest Rights Act and the rights of adivasis and forest dwellers is being lost in the battle about tourism.