17/09/2026
Kabini and the Cost of Wildlife Tourism in Karnataka
Kabini, part of Nagarahole National Park near Mysore, has always occupied a special place in Karnataka's wildlife story. Its status goes back to the era of the British Raj and the Maharajas of Mysore, both of whom prized this landscape long before it became a tourist destination.
For decades, the annual elephant congregation was Kabini's signature spectacle. Over the last ten years, though, its reputation has shifted almost entirely to the Black Panther — a shift that brought stricter rules, a surge of photography enthusiasts, and a transformation of what was once an elephant gathering into a broader wildlife draw. Ironically, the panther itself hasn't been sighted in a good while now, even as its legend continues to define the destination.
The complaint I hear most often from prospective travellers is cost. A night in Kabini runs around ₹20,000 per person, and on top of that sits the forest department's camera fee — among the highest in the country. Fees scale with lens focal length: anything under 250mm is relatively affordable, a lens up to 500mm can run ₹1,000+GST per safari, and anything above 500mm climbs to ₹1,500+GST per safari.
Do the math for a couple spending two nights, one of them carrying a 600mm lens: ₹20,000 × 4 = ₹80,000 for the stay, plus roughly ₹10,000 in camera fees alone. Travel expenses extra.
That's close to $1,000 for a weekend — comparable to what a Kenya safari costs for twelve hours a day in the bush. In Kabini, you get about five: two and a half hours in the morning, and the same in the evening. It's easy to see why people call it outrageous.
At Toehold, we've been bringing travellers to Kabini for seventeen years, and we're seeing it get harder every year to justify this experience to newcomers — even as more luxurious (and pricier) lodges keep opening around the reserve. For a large segment of travellers, the value simply doesn't add up anymore.
Some argue the forest department was never built to care about tourism, so friction is inevitable — and that's a fair point. The department's real mandate is habitat protection: poaching, encroachment, disease, soil erosion, all the unglamorous work that keeps these ecosystems alive. Fielding permission requests from photographers chasing bragging rights was probably never meant to be part of the job.
Which raises the real question: why doesn't India have a dedicated wildlife tourism body — one that works alongside the forest department without being wholly dependent on it? Countries that do this well seem to separate conservation management from visitor experience, letting each function operate with the right priorities. Karnataka, and India more broadly, might be overdue for the same.
Curious to hear how others see this — is a separate tourism authority the answer, or is there a better model for balancing conservation priorities with a sustainable tourism economy?
Toehold Experiences