Wildlife-based Tourism - Essay Example

Wildlife-based Tourism Introduction The tourism industry has evolved over the years. In the past, it involved unusual and visually stimulating natural and man-made occurrences and phenomenon, and now it has expanded to include more natural wonders like wildlife interactions. It has spawned various tourist activities like African Safaris, bird watching, deep sea-diving, and similar activities. These activities have attracted many tourists from the more affluent circles and societies in the West who seem to be eager to commune and interact with the wildlife. Wildlife-based tourism has brought both positive and negative changes to the wildlife and to the tourists. This paper shall discuss wildlife-based tourism, its attractions, and its negative and positive impact on wildlife, on the patrons, and Mother Nature in general. It shall discuss how it has successfully drawn in a largely European, middle class and affluent group of tourists to both the benefit and the detriment of the wildlife. Benefits of wildlife-based tourism In recent years, African safaris have become a very attractive activity for many tourists, but never more so than for the European, middle-class, and affluent ones. Big-game hunting, which is part of the African safari experience, has attracted many middle and high-class tourists from the Western hemisphere. These affluent tourists are very much willing to spend large amounts of their money in order to have the opportunity to get away from their normally stressful lives. These tourists also seek the thrill of being immersed in wilderness adventures while being able to relax in a more natural environment. They seek these adventures in order to relieve their stress and anxiety; in some instances to experience the spiritual and profound (Newsome, 2005). The big-game hunting sport usually culminates in the awarding of trophies for the best hunter among the participants, but this achievement usually plays a secondary role to the natural adventure that they get to experience through wildlife-based tourism. This form of wildlife-based tourism is only seen in countries and areas with strict and capable monitoring measures in place. This ensures that big-game hunting does not unnecessarily endanger ecological balance and is safe for tourists. And the most important benefit on the part of the government and the locals is that big profit is coming in from this wildlife-based tourism. “Returns to governments accrue from land leases and trophy fees, apart from the indirect economic benefits of tourism” (Roth & Merz, 1997). This income flow is very much beneficial for an area largely consumed and hardened by poverty. It gives the locals a steady income, and it gives the government revenue to fund its various development projects for the greater benefit of the people. Revenue from wildlife-based tourism can also be used to fund services and amenities (sewerage and waste disposal system, electricity, waterworks system) that benefit not just the locals but the tourists as well. These amenities are very simple facilities yet often ignored and taken for granted by the affluent and the middle-class in their own cities. But, to the locals in impoverished areas, these amenities cost money to build. Money that they cannot sacrifice over their basic food, clothing, and shelter needs (Alexander, 1986). Wildlife based tourism, more specifically big-game hunting, also helps in the efforts towards conservation. Since many affluent and middle-class tourists are willing to pay big money to hunt wild game, many landowners are “investing much money into the re-introduction of or stocking of their lands with wild animals such as game birds, deer, antelope, and buffalo” (Roth & Merz, 1997). Also, since these animals have now become a potential source of income for farmers and other land owners, efforts to conserve and breed them are being more actively done. In a strange twist of fate, what was originally thought of as detrimental to the welfare of the wildlife population is actually turning into a means of saving and improving its numbers. Various landowners are now allowing the utilization of their lands for hunting and recreational activities by these affluent tourists. The benefit of leasing such lands to tourists is especially seen in areas which are not suitable for farming and livestock production. By leasing these lands to Safari operators and other private big-game hunting groups, tribal communities are able to make more money from these ventures, more money than they would have earned from subsistence farming. This type of hunting is prohibited in many developed countries, and these nations often still experience the loss of their wildlife in their parks and protected habitats. And this loss is mostly owed to illegal and unlicensed hunters and poachers. By becoming more open to the benefits of wildlife-based tourism activities, like big-game hunting, it is possible to have a win-win situation. Safari expeditions and big-game hunting activities are guided by experienced local hunters who accompany tourists and indicate which animals they can legally hunt, and how many they can actually hunt. And these measures help control the hunting, while still allowing the tourists to enjoy the experience. Many affluent and middle-class tourists can afford to spend thousands of dollars to finance their wildlife expeditions. The estimate cost of a 30-day East African hunt would cost about $50,000, with additional trophy fees which run up to thousands of dollars for each animal. But not all wildlife activities involve big-game hunting. Many middle-class tourists who cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars on big-game hunting expeditions opt for the more tame activities like photography and wildlife watching. Some tourist managers attest that, “wildlife watching is increasing…and generates almost twice to the general economy what hunting does” (Page, as quoted by Belli, 2009). In the case of African Safaris, the less affluent tourist usually decides to “rough it”, to do away with a variety of human conveniences during his ‘adventure’. In these instances, the local communities have less opportunity to profit. The locals tend to economically benefit more from the “more affluent seasoned traveler who wants to experience Africa in style and comfort” (Anderson & Bridge, 2005). Lands which are set aside for Safaris and big-game hunting are also protected and spared from encroachment, cultivation, and grazing. In the end, it is also possible to conserve different flora and fauna species which exist in these protected areas through wildlife-based tourism. It allows other species to flourish, creating a more diverse ecology. “Hunters have a very positive effect because the money that they bring into the country makes it economically worthwhile for the government to protect an area” (Caro, as quoted by Baldus, 2006). Although, admittedly, the population of animals who are subject to big-game hunting would most likely decrease, other species are saved through the conservation and protection of their habitat. In Tanzania, the government has actually set aside about 100,000 square kilometers of Game Reserves. Aerial surveys of these areas have revealed that the density of animals in these areas were very much similar to the density of animals in open areas. The density of animals in open lands which allow settlement and cattle grazing was also compared with protected areas, and results revealed that the latter areas were much more populated in game as compared to the open lands. “This shows that it is not tourist hunting itself that conserves mammals but it is the absence of people living in Game Reserves and National Parks or perhaps the absence of resident hunters that are the key” (Caro, as quoted by Baldus, 2006). These areas also indicated greater greenness as compared to open lands. The Game Reserves can afford and are expected to keep these areas as healthy as possible in order to ensure secure and healthy habitats for the wildlife. Unfortunately, open areas, are not protected at all; instead they suffer from illegal and uncontrolled logging by residents and other illegal loggers. Some experts have also claimed that the depletion of animal population due to big-game hunting from tourists is minimal compared to the loss of their numbers from illegal hunters and poachers (Caro, as quoted by Baldus, 2006). These illegal hunters take these animals home to feed their families or sometimes to sell the meat in the markets. Even licensed hunters usually take more than they are allowed. This makes wildlife-based tourism more favorable because it keeps the hunting regulated and monitored for specific animals and at specified numbers per hunter. In instances when the cost of wildlife maintenance needs to be increased, the cost of visits to these areas also needs to be increased to cover costs of maintenance. Consequently, only the more affluent tourists are able to afford access to these places. Through a clientele which is prepared to pay whatever cost to enjoy the wildlife, wildlife-based parks can be properly maintained regardless of the cost. Through higher costs of tourism, these wildlife parks become less accessible to the general public and less prone to deterioration. This was seen in the Samadai Reef in the Egyptian Sea Coast where dolphin-watching became so popular that excessive visitation increased its deterioration and decreased its quality. Park authorities were then forced to decrease their entrance fees, which increased the influx of tourists to the reef, consequently leading to its further deterioration (Tapper, 2006). The International Ecotourism Society describes a typical ecotourist as an “experienced middle-aged traveler who is well educated and affluent” (The Louis Berger Group, 2007). And ecotourism is fast becoming a very lucrative and preferred mode of tourism by those in the middle-class communities. The focus of these ecotourists is to experience nature on a more personal level. As a result, they have a greater economic impact yet minimal invasion on resources because they can afford to spend the most money to obtain the best quality of services. As a result they are able to contribute a substantial amount of revenue to the local economy, even with steep costs given by airlines, hotels, restaurants, and parks. Bird-watching is one of these enterprises gaining attention from ecotourists. And they can easily afford to pay the $5,000-10,000 on this venture. Bird-watching in the Iraqi-Kurdistan region is currently becoming a favored spot for ecotourists. Tourists come to gaze upon a variety of bird species in about 40 bird-watch areas. These areas have not been fully developed as tourist spots. However, their potential is already recognized by many interest groups. And, it is undeniable how “an ecotourism destination focused on bird-watching is of great potential value for Iraqi tourism” (The Louis Berger Group, 2007). The mountains in the area of Iraqi-Kurdistan also provide an interesting addition to ecotourists, increasing the potential of this war-torn nation as a prime tourist destination. The more affluent tourists are also very much willing to spend as much as they can towards wildlife conservation and protection efforts. Their economic influence can also potentially bring much needed attention to these areas, while augmenting preservation efforts by local communities and government authorities. “A survey conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America found that 83 percent of U.S. travelers are inclined to support “green” travel companies who are willing to spend, on average, 6.2% more for travel services and products provided by environmentally responsible travel suppliers” (Eco-Resorts, 2003). With the above points in mind, some experts and interest groups point out that with stricter laws and good management and monitoring activities, wildlife-based tourism can be very beneficial for all parties concerned. The tourists, who are willing to shell out large amounts of cash for the wildlife experience, are able to get their money’s worth; the locals benefit from services offered to these local tourists; and the animals are able to enjoy protected habitats. Negative Impact of Wildlife-based tourism Many conservationists take issue with big-game hunting. They criticize the act itself as unethical. One conservationist remarked that, “if you’re killing something and not eating it, you have no moral standing” (Peterson, as quoted by Belli, 2009). And this has been the rallying point of those who oppose wildlife-based tourism. They vehemently oppose it for its unethical implications. They also point out that some of the hunt guides are actually ranchers who already know where the watering and feeding areas of these animals; they can easily lead the tourist to these places without much ‘hunting’ done by the tourists. Some animals also get killed before they enter their breeding cycles, or have not yet reached maturity. Dominant male members are often killed leaving the pack vulnerable to other dominant alpha males (Damm, 2008). Enclosures to these areas are also easily accessed by animals and illegal hunters who can indiscriminately hunt these animals to their heart’s content. Many point out that the revenue from wildlife-based tourism does not ultimately benefit the local communities; instead the revenue is injected back towards conservation efforts for the wildlife (EcoIndia, 2008). While the wildlife flourish, the local communities remain the same, sometimes even becoming more impoverished because they are restricted from hunting in and entering the protected areas to gather food and other resources therein. Some interest groups point out that the more affluent tourists tend to carry an air of superiority about themselves. They are often “found taking advantage of their position by violating the rules and regulations of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, creating very serious problems for the management staff and other visitors” (Tiwari & Joshi, 1997). The more affluent tourists also expect to be housed in the best hotels and luxury accommodations. This usually necessitates the building of large hotels around the parks. More and more of these hotels built tend to encroach on protected areas and parks. And with increased establishments and tourist population, increase in pollution inevitably follows. “Forests and wildlife are highly susceptible to human activities and interferences” (Tiwari & Joshi, 1997). On an uncontrolled scale, ecotourism can destroy wildlife habitats and consequently lead to the endangerment of wildlife species. Recommendations Weighing both sides of the topic, this student recommends improved management of wildlife tourism. Through strict management and monitoring by park authorities, it is possible to avoid the negative impact of wildlife-based tourism. Park rules should be imposed on all tourists regardless of their station in life. A firm and unbiased implementation process by Park Rangers and other park authorities will help accomplish fairness in park management. This student also recommends that a bigger percentage of profits from wildlife-based tourism be allocated for the social and economic development of the local communities. This will help keep them economically viable and eventually prevent them from illegally hunting wild game in the protected areas. Big-game hunting should also be strictly monitored; the kind and the number of animals that can be hunted by tourists should be regulated. Conclusion Wildlife-based tourism is presently attracting the middle-class and affluent tourists to the advantage and the detriment of wildlife and local communities. These affluent tourists seek the best deals their money can buy. Their money helps bring in income to local communities, and revenue towards conservation efforts. However, their presence does not ensure bigger profits to the community, since most of the revenue goes to conservation efforts. They are also more prone to break park rules and potentially bring in more environmental damage than their less affluent counterparts. However, it cannot be denied that the attention that affluent citizens have brought to wildlife-based tourism is helping the conservation of wildlife and is keeping the local communities afloat. Indeed, there is merit to this enterprise that is very much worth considering. Works Cited Alexander, P. (1986) Tourism and its significance in local development, Michigan State University, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modtd/33500046.html Anderson, D. & Bridge, D. (2005) On Safari, Focus on Africa Publications, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.onsafari.info/pdf/Introduction%20Chapter%20Preview.pdf. Belli, B. (2009) The Hunter in Africa, EMagazine, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4326 Baldus, R. (21 May 2006) Hunting Benefits Biodiversity. African Conservation, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.africanconservation.org/dcforum/DCForumID21/200.html Damm, G. (2008) Recreational Trophy Hunting: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?, CIC Tropical Game Commission, viewed 05 April 2009 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e01.pdf Louis Berger Group (16 July 2007)The Tourism Industry in Iraq, Izdihar-Iraq.com, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.izdihariraq.com/resources/papers_pdfs/iraq_tourism_report_final_20070717_web.pdf. Newsome, D., et.al. (2005), Wildlife tourism, New York: Channel View Publications Risks and Benefits of Eco Tourism (2008) Eco India, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.ecoindia.com/sustainable-tourism/risks-and-benefits-of-eco-tourism.html Roth, H. & Merz, G. (1997) Wildlife resources: a global account of economic use. New York: Springer Publishing Tapper, R. (2006) Wildlife watching and tourism: a study on the benefits and risks of a fast growing tourism activity and its impacts on species, Nairobi, Africa: Earthprint The Biodiversity that People Make (2003) Eco-resorts, viewed 05 April 2009 from http://www.eco-resorts.com/Archives/mediakit5.php Tiwari, P. & Joshi, B. (1997) Wildlife in the Himalayan foothills: conservation and management, New Delhi, India: Indus Publishing Read More