Can Ecotourism and Hunting Coexist? Research Paper Example

Africa may economically lagged behind other continents but the continent has always been rich in natural resources including diamond, gold, and animal biodiversity. Africa’s biodiversity has given rise to a whole new sector in tourism called ecotourism which now also includes hunting. But like many other problems, there is no clear answer to the question as to whether ecotourism and hunting can coexist? The best answer may be the middle ground which is to allow hunting for animals that are not facing extinction while protecting others. But this solution also has the potential to be exploited, thus, it is only feasible if accompanied by strict and effective enforcement of regulations that protect threatened species. The difficulty of implementing an effective policy regarding ecotourism and hunting can be judged by the fact that trophy hunting is being used in countries such as South Africa as a legal way to dodge the law and ship items such as ivory, rhino horn, and lion bones in trophy form (Wyk).

In 2007, South Africa alone attracted over 9 million visitors which was a growth of 8.3% over the previous year. A substantial portion of this growth might have been due to ecotourists and hunters since South Africa is the third most diverse country in the world biologically. In South Africa, gross annual income from game ranches exceeds U.S. $84 million and some of this income is also used for conservation. In fact, private game ranches in South Africa have contributed to the recovery of blesbok, white rhinoceros, black wildebeest, and the cape mountain Zebra (Fricker). This example shows that ecotourism can play a huge role in improving the economies of African countries and the income generated from hunting can also be used for the conservation of threatened species.

Ecotourism may even generate more income if hunting of threatened species is banned. This is because hunting only results in one-time income while conservation results in a continuous stream of income due to photographic tourists. It has been estimated that a maned male lion earned Kenya National Parks $50,000 a year through photographic tourism in 1982 while in neighboring Tanzania, hunters were paying a one-time fee of $2,000 in 2004. There are also other benefits to banning hunting of threatened species such as income throughout the year instead of just during the hunting season, jobs for more people, and higher staff wages (League Against Cruel Sports). A report by Australia based independent economics consultancy Economists at Large also found that Namibian Seals were worth a lot more alive than dead. In 2008, the seal hunt generated only $513,000 while seal-watching earned $2 million (Environmental Protection).

Thus, it is clear that ecotourism is beneficial to the economic growth of African countries but the benefits can be increased by limiting hunting to only those species which are in abundance and banning the hunting of threatened species. Banning the hunting of threatened species is not only morally right thing to do but also economically wiser choice.

References

Environmental Protection. Analysis Shows Namibia’s Seals are Worth More Alive Than Dead. 1 September 2011. 14 April 2012 <http://eponline.com/articles/2011/09/01/analysis-shows-namibias-seals-are-worth-more-alive-than-dead.aspx>.

Fricker, Samantha. Assessing the compatibility of ecotourism and hunting through the attitudes and choices of ecotourists. 14 April 2012 <https://sites.google.com/site/witsgeoghonours/assessing-the-compatibility-of-ecotourism-and-hunting-through-the-attitudes-and-choices-of-ecotourists>.

League Against Cruel Sports. The Myth of Trophy hunting as Conservation. December 2004. 14 April 2012 <http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archive/Hunting/The_%20Myth_of_Trophy_Hunting_as_Conservation.pdf>.

Wyk, Sharon van. Can Trophy Hunting And Eco-Tourism Co-Exist? 18 August 2011. 14 April 2012 <http://africafreak.com/blog/can-trophy-hunting-and-eco-tourism-co-exist>