The concept of protected areas continues to generate lively debate; but is it necessarily alive inside governing institutions the emphasis is on dispassionate analysis. It remains to be proven that protected areas, or tourism in protected areas, deliver any real or lasting benefits. The ecotourism industry is no more forthright. Yet, both are considered tools for biodiversity conservation as if there was no history of disrepute. And both are peddled to Indigenous Peoples without hesitation. This could mean that the toolbox mismatches the task; however, there is good reason to go further and speculate on the task itself. The ideological foundation of protected areas is reason for alarm. Protected areas provide no assurance of sustainable use, if sustainability is understood as healthy behaviour. They are developed in the context of economic growth - that is, 'resource' consumption. Revenue objectives of government still met and industry priorities still catered to. It is scandalous to suggest that this safeguards anything.