Can Ecotourism and Hunting Coexist, Essay Example

According to The International Ecotourism Society (IES), ecotourism can be defined as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.” The central idea behind ecotourism is that it is possible to combine conservation, communities’ interests, and sustainable travel (The International Ecotourism Society). In other words, ecotourism benefits conservation projects by providing funds. In addition, ecotourism also creates jobs and other economic benefits for the local communities. Tourists benefit through a positive travel experience which also helps them become better informed about the human impact on the environment as well as host countries’ political, environmental, and social climate. Thus, tourists enjoy and gain objective knowledge at the same time. Hunting is defined as the practice of pursuing any living thing, usually wildlife, for food, recreation, or trade. Hunting differs from poaching in the sense that hunting is lawful hunting while poaching is the killing of species protected by applicable laws (Americans Networking to Survive).

Any objective discussion on ecotourism and hunting would not be complete without a look at their economic impact. Africa Geographic did a hypothetical comparison between two average-sized concessions in the Okavango Delta in Botswana, one operating hunting safaris and the other operating photographic safaris and discovered interesting facts. According to the analysis, photographic safari provided employment to 76 people for 12 months or a combined total of 27,360 days per year while hunting safari provided employment to 12 people for 6 months and 2 people for 12 months or a combined total of 2,952 days per year. The revenue to Air Botswana due to photographic safaris was $631,000 while in contrast, hunting safaris contributed only $7,200 towards Air Botswana revenues. As far as local accommodation services are concerned, photographic safaris resulted in a combined booking of 6,840 bed nights per season. In contrast, hunting safaris resulted in a combined booking of only 420 bed nights per season. Total revenue generated per year from photographic safaris was $1.55 million while hunting safaris generated $448,000 during the same period (League Against Cruel Sports). In short, photographic safaris generated more than three times the revenue generated by hunting safaris.

This hypothetical comparison proves several facts. While hunting safaris may be more lucrative on the average, photographic safaris are overall more profitable due to economies of scale. The nature of hunting safaris is such that it is possible to service only few clients at a time while photographic safaris do not have such limitation. Hunting safaris also provide employment to few people because the primary focus is on the hunting itself while tourists who opt for photographic safaris prefer the whole experience to be enjoyable. Hunting safaris also generate lower revenue because they are seasonal in nature while photographic safaris can be held round-the-year. This is why photographic safaris provide more stable employment to locals as compared to hunting safaris.

In addition to possessing greater economic benefits as compared to hunting, ecotourism also has numerous other social and environmental benefits. Ecotourism emphasizes the observation of animal species in their natural habitats, thus, do not pose any danger to the animal themselves. In other words, ecotourism contributes towards conservation of, especially, those species that are at a risk of going extinct. Ecotourism involves shooting as well but with photo cameras and a single animal could be photographed thousand times and it will still be there for the pleasure of other ecotourists. Same cannot be said about hunting in which once an animal has been shot dead, it stops contributing towards the local economy and the loss cannot be recovered. Ecotourism also builds environmental awareness because it allows tourists to see how human activity destroys the natural habitat of animals and threatened their survival at the same time. It increases appreciation of local ecology and encourages tourists to adopt more responsible lifestyle choices. Ecotourism can be carried out all year long which means it provides non-stop boost to the local economy. The businesses and locals generate income throughout the year and the economic benefits flow to maximum number of people instead of only to few.

Hunters argue in their defense that they also contribute towards conservation by hunting animals and preventing their population from disturbing the balance of the nature. But the reality is that they often use the argument to distract from their illegal activities and would not hesitate to use their financial and political might to advance their own personal agenda. Trophy hunting gives them a legal right to kill animals and they use the right to ship items such as ivory, rhino horn, and lion bones in trophy form. The only difference between trophy hunters and poachers is that trophy hunters ship items under legal disguise otherwise their actions are not very different from poachers in essence.

Hunting carries severe social and environmental costs. First of all, it further endangers threatened species that are already at the brink of extinction. In addition, hunters shoot at the strongest and the healthiest male in the groups 85 percent of the times. The laws of nature dictate that the healthiest males offer the best prospects of healthy survival of the off-springs and, thus, are the most important for the long-term future of any species. By hunting down the most promising members of the group, the hunters further ensure the extinction of hunted species. One of the reasons why trophy hunting continues to thrive despite being an inferior alternative to ecotourism economically is due to the corrupt system. Trophy hunting benefits the few people in power who do not hesitate to protect their own interests at the expense of the national interests. According to Sir Edward Dashwood, Director of Churchill Sporting Agency, 90 percent of the money from trophy hunting goes in the pockets of someone powerful or influential or an African politician (League Against Cruel Sports). Thus, not only trophy hunting further promotes corruption but also excludes the majority of the locals from the benefits. In contrast, ecotourism benefits are widespread and shared by a significant number of locals.

Ecotourism and hunting may coexist but not in the current format which has too many loopholes as well as weak implementation of applicable laws. But various steps could help improve the situation and allow for more effective co-existence of ecotourism and hunting. First of all, serious reforms are needed to ensure more effective implementation of all applicable laws. Second, hunting should be banned in National Parks and other popular tourist destinations. In addition, hunting season should also be reduced. Another effective course of action will be to ban the import of the animals killed including items such as ivory, rhino horn, and lion bones etc. Eliminating the financing incentive that come from possessing the remains of hunted animals will also go a long way towards discouraging trophy hunting since it will make trophy hunting even more expensive. In addition, this course of action will also close the loophole under which these items are legally imported under the disguise of trophy hunting and, thus, escape prosecution by applicable international laws. Moreover, trophy hunting should only be limited to those animals whose populations are large and, thus, hunting them will not drive them into extinction in the near future or create conditions that threaten their long-term survival.

It is clear that ecotourism and hunting may be able to coexist but not in the current format. The legal loopholes should be closed, all applicable international and local laws should be effectively implemented, and hunting should be allowed in a format that doesn’t have adverse negative impact on animal diversity or the environment. Potential courses of action include banning import of animal remains, even those obtained through trophy hunting, shortening hunting season, limiting hunting to animals with abundant supply, and allowing hunting in only limited areas. These measures will not only be environmentally friendly but also yield greater economic and social benefits to the local communities. More local inhabitants will be employed, they will earn higher salaries, businesses will remain open throughout the year, and image of local culture and communities will be improved on the international level.

References

Americans Networking to Survive. Learn How To Hunt. 26 April 2012 <http://www.americansnetworkingtosurvive.org/Hunt.html>.

League Against Cruel Sports. The Myth of Trophy hunting as Conservation. December 2004. 26 April 2012 <http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archive/Hunting/The_%20Myth_of_Trophy_Hunting_as_Conservation.pdf>.

The International Ecotourism Society. What is Ecotourism? 27 April 2012 <http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism>.